Court Opinion

ID: 9630502
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:12:28.621307+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:39.137029
License: Public Domain

Rosellini, J.
(dissenting) — The findings in this proceeding show that the respondent was admitted to the bar in 1973. In 1979, he was hired by Eileen Smith to foreclose a lien of judgment arising from her dissolution. The respondent did some initial research on the chain of title, obtained a title report for the property, and considered getting the opinion of a second attorney. He took no further action on this case. The findings do not reflect that the client suffered any loss as a result of this failure. The findings also show that two additional claims, which were without merit, were filed against the respondent, and that he failed to cooperate with the bar in the investigation of the negligence claims.
With regard to the misappropriation of clients' funds, the findings show that the respondent made a number of withdrawals of trust funds over a 2-year period totaling $5,000. He voluntarily returned these funds to the trust account with deposits in varying amounts over that 2-year period. The respondent cooperated with the bar association in the investigation of his mishandling of trust funds.
There can be no question but that these were very serious defalcations, reflecting discredit upon the bar. It does not follow, however, that the respondent must be disbarred in order to prevent reoccurrence, discourage similar conduct on the part of other lawyers and restore public confidence in the bar. In re Salvesen, 94 Wn.2d 73, 614 P.2d 1264 (1980); In re Kumbera, 91 Wn.2d 401, 588 P.2d 1167 *240(1979). In Kumbera we said that restitution, repentance and temporary personal disability are relevant in considering the proper discipline to be imposed. The findings here are silent as to the elements of repentance and temporary disability, but they do reflect voluntary restitution. They also show that no prior disciplinary actions had been taken against the respondent.
Disbarment is a devastating penalty and for the young lawyer who has not established a great number of friendships within the bar, reinstatement may be difficult, even though he has achieved complete rehabilitation in the interim. For this reason, I believe the court should exercise some hesitation in disbarring a lawyer where the findings do not show that clients have suffered any loss as a result of the lawyer's conduct. Suspension is also a very strong deterrent to future misconduct and is severe enough in a case such as this, I think, to restore public confidence in the profession. Certainly a 1- or 2-year suspension should have that effect.
I would so order.
Williams, J., concurs with Rosellini, J.