Court Opinion

ID: 9566100
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:33:52.478201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:09.721157
License: Public Domain

*1269Justice VOLLACK
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to suspend the respondent for three years. In my opinion, disbarment is warranted by the respondent’s breach of trust placed in him as a public official and prosecutor.
The respondent entered into a written stipulation of facts, establishing by clear and convincing evidence that he violated C.R.C.P. 241.6(1) and (5)1 and the Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 1-102(A)(1), (5), and (6).2
The respondent admitted that at the time he took the oath of office as district attorney he knew his wife and her long-time friend, Susie Hess (Hess), were users of marijuana. As district attorney in 1985, he hired Hess to work for the District Attorney’s Office in Fremont County. Respondent admits that he knew his wife and his employee Hess continued to obtain and use marijuana, and that he took no action to enforce the laws he was sworn to uphold. In October 1988, respondent met Hess at her residence and purchased less than one-half ounce of marijuana for his wife. The respondent was subsequently arrested and charged with criminal conduct. The respondent entered into a disposition and pleaded guilty to two Class II misdemeanor counts of official misconduct and one count of possession of marijuana, less than one ounce, a petty offense.
I.
In determining appropriate sanctions for unethical conduct, we normally apply the American Bar Association’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1986). Standard 5.2 — Violation of Duties Owed to the Public, and Failure to Maintain the Public Trust — is appropriate in cases involving public officials engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. Standard 5.21 provides:
Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer in an official or governmental position knowingly misuses the position with the intent to obtain a significant benefit or advantage for himself or another, or with the intent to cause serious or potentially serious injury to a party or to the integrity of the legal process.
Standard 5.22 provides:
Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer in an official or governmental position knowingly fails to follow proper procedures or rules, and causes injury or potential injury to a party or to the integrity of the legal process.
The ABA Standards set out four factors to be considered when imposing sanctions.3 The misconduct stipulated to by the respondent establishes a pattern of knowing misuse of his position as district attorney to benefit himself and his wife by continuing to aid and abet criminal activity. This conduct seriously injured the integrity of the legal profession, warranting disbarment *1270under ABA Standard 5.21 for misuse of position, rather than suspension under ABA Standard 5.22 for failure to follow proper procedures or rules.
II.
We have held that lawyers who hold the position of district attorney assume responsibilities beyond those of other attorneys, and that when their misconduct damages the confidence of the public in the integrity of the legal profession and judicial system, disbarment was appropriate rather than the recommended three-year suspension. People v. Brown, 726 P.2d 638 (Colo.1986). In this case, the majority concludes that the crimes committed by Larsen are less serious than those committed in Brown.
I disagree. I find the actions of the respondent more grievous than in Brown. In Brown, the acts were one-time incidents, occurring after he had assumed public office. Here, the respondent’s acts were a series of violations occurring prior to and after his taking the oath of office to enforce the criminal laws of the state. The respondent knew of the illegal acts of his wife’s and her friend’s marijuana use prior to his taking the oath of office as district attorney. With this knowledge, he assumed the office of district attorney and, for three years, knowingly permitted the criminal activity to continue — activity which he observed, participated in, and aided — until he was arrested in October 1988. Of the mitigating circumstances cited by the majority, only one, in my opinion, could be considered mitigation prior to his arrest; that is the absence of any prior disciplinary record, which was also true in the Brown case. Cooperation with the Grievance Committee and performing public service as part of his probation sentence, after the truth is known, does not in my opinion constitute mitigating circumstances justifying the sanction imposed by the majority.
The majority notes the aggravating factor in this case is Larsen’s pattern of misconduct, ABA Standard 9.22(c). Maj. op. at 1267. I agree, but find that he knew of the conduct before he took the oath of office and did nothing to correct it. This pattern of conduct alone is more grievous than the single episode in Brown.
The respondent’s condonation of this criminal activity after taking the oath of office of district attorney demeans the integrity of the legal system and the public confidence in the justice system. It is not too much to say that a lawyer who holds the position of district attorney, with the substantial powers of that office, assumes responsibilities beyond those of other lawyers and must be held to the highest standard of conduct. Brown, 726 P.2d at 641.
I cannot agree that suspension for three years is appropriate in this case. I believe a public official’s abuse of power and office warrants disbarment. Anything less erodes the public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession and the justice system.
I am authorized to say that Justice ERICKSON and Justice LOHR join in this dissent.

. Rule 241.6 Grounds for Discipline
Misconduct by a lawyer, individually or in concert with others, including the following acts or omissions, shall constitute grounds for discipline, whether or not the act or omission occurred in the course of an attorney-client relationship:
(1) Any act or omission which violates the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility;
[[Image here]]
(5) Any act or omission which violates the criminal laws of this state or any other state, or of the United States; provided that conviction thereof in a criminal proceeding shall not be a prerequisite to the institution of disciplinary proceedings, and provided further that acquittal in a criminal proceeding shall not necessarily bar disciplinary action[.]

. DR 1-102 Misconduct.
(A) A lawyer shall not:
(1) Violate a Disciplinary Rule.
[[Image here]]
(5) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
(6) Engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.

. The four factors to be considered, as set out in Standard 3.0, are:
(a) the duty violated;
(b) the lawyer’s mental state;
(c) the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct; and
(d) the existence of aggravating and mitigating factors.