Court Opinion

ID: 9511772
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:08:02.699824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:09.940654
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE RICE
concurs in part and dissents in part.
¶85 I concur with the Court’s resolution of the issues related to the professional conduct rule violations and the evidentiary questions raised herein. I dissent, however, from the Court’s determination to revise the sanction recommended by the Commissi on on Practice.
¶86 The Court’s opinion establishes that Potts should have withdrawn from representation as soon as his clients’ demands “propelled his services into the realm of assisting in his clients’ fraudulent behavior.” However, he did not withdraw, thereby violating Rule 1.16, M.R.P.C. Further, he proceeded to violate Rule 1.2, M.R.P.C., by making misrepresentations “that assisted in his clients’ fraudulent purpose.” Recognizing that “Potts did more than acquiesce to his clients’ *538demands of silence,” the Court holds that “Potts assisted in his clients’ fraud by drafting, circulating, and filing with the court a stipulation[] stating that all disputes had been settled” when he knew otherwise. The Court concludes by holding that Potts violated Rule 3.3, M.R.P.C., by violating the duty of candor to the tribunal before which he had appeared.
¶87 The Office of Disciplinary Counsel has argued that this serious matter warrants a more severe sanction than recommended by the Commission, but that the recommended discipline is “appropriate as a minimum” necessary to “justify the public’s faith in the concept that lawyers must always pursue the truth.”
¶88 After hearing the evidence in this complex proceeding, assessing the credibility of the parties, and drawing on its experience in the handling of many disciplinary matters, the Commission recommended the imposition of a thirty-day suspension, in addition to a public censure and payment of costs. I cannot concur with the Court’s conclusion that a thirty-day suspension is “unwarranted” under the facts of this case, and I would adopt the Commission’s recommendation.
We join in the concurring and dissenting opinion of Justice Rice.
/S/ DISTRICT JUDGE JOHN C. McKEON, sitting in place of CHIEF JUSTICE GRAY
/S/ DISTRICT JUDGE HOLLY BROWN, sitting in place of JUSTICE COTTER