Court Opinion

ID: 9822893
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 09:30:37.240646+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:11.284224
License: Public Domain

ADKINS, J.,
dissenting.
Respectfully, I dissent from the Majority. Athough I expect that ultimately Mr. Kent should be disbarred for the conduct outlined in the Majority opinion, I am troubled by the orders of the hearing judge concerning discovery sanctions.
First, I think the hearing judge erred in granting the Motion to Shorten Time to Respond to Petitioner’s Motion for Sanctions to less than two full days when, at that time, Respondent was only three days late in providing responses to discovery. Neither Respondent nor his counsel should be expected to be prepared to file an answer on two days’ notice. Second, the court was unduly harsh in the nature and extent of the sanctions imposed — prohibiting Respondent from presenting virtually all possible defenses, including mitigation.
I do not condone in any way Respondent’s underlying misconduct. My concern is for the precedent that we set in approving of such harsh sanctions for what began as a very minimal discovery violation. Athough it is cumbersome to remand at this point, particularly when the misconduct here *588appears so severe, I believe we must do so for the sake of maintaining fairness in this and future cases.
I would remand to the hearing judge and direct that Respondent be given the opportunity to put on a defense to the charges of misconduct.