Court Opinion

ID: 9703123
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:41:25.883296+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:12:35.883087
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Justice,
dissenting.
In April of 1979, when this Court was presented with respondent’s record, former Chief Justice Eagen and I took a minority view and agreed with the recommendation of the Disciplinary Board that this Court should have suspended respondent for a period of six months, and should not have entered a mere public censure. Although this Court is now presented with additional, substantiated charges of serious misconduct by respondent, including a falsely sworn application for a driver’s license, there is, in light of the majority’s previous public censure, no basis in “fairness for disbarment. The charges now before us all pre-date this Court’s public censure. There is no evidence that, since this censure, *203respondent has engaged in any improper conduct. On this record, I would agree with the Disciplinary Board that suspension, and not disbarment, is the appropriate penalty. In view of the seriousness of the present charges, however, I would suspend respondent for a period of three years, rather than one year as recommended by the Board.
O’BRIEN, C. J., joins this dissenting opinion.