Court Opinion

ID: 9741288
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:52:47.046648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:23.263907
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The sanction imposed by the court is grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.
The court suspends Mr. Atanga from the practice of law for several ill-advised decisions that he made during the course of a kafkaesque series of events. Approximately one year after being admitted to the bar, Mr. Atanga traveled to Lafayette to represent without charge an indigent, troubled young woman for whom no local representation was apparently available. After Mr. Atanga agreed to represent the woman in another matter (also without charge), the judge granted his request to schedule the next hearing so that it did not conflict with a previously scheduled court appearance in Indianapolis. The day before the Indianapolis hearing, the judge called Mr. Atanga and, countermanding his earlier entry, ordered Mr. Atanga to be in Lafayette the next day. When Mr. Atanga did not appear the next *1259day or at the subsequently scheduled contempt hearing, he was arrested in Indianapolis, placed in the Marion County jail overnight, transported to Lafayette the next day, fingerprinted, photographed, had his belongings confiscated, dressed in prison garb and, while so dressed, hauled into court not only to defend himself against contempt charges but also to represent his client, who had also been brought to court. At this hearing, a full complement from the local press corps was present.
The sanction imposed by the majority today is unjust for three reasons: First, it rests on insufficient findings of fact. Second, it is grossly disproportionate to the offense alleged. And, third, it fails to take into account substantial mitigating factors.
While Mr. Atanga makes legitimate arguments as to why he failed to attend either of the hearings that he is charged with missing, I agree with the hearing officer that this conduct did violate Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 3.4(e) and 8.4(d). However, I also agree with the hearing officer that the contempt sanctions imposed by the trial judge were sufficient sanction for these violations. The majority appears to agree. Therefore, the sanction at issue is that attributable to Mr. Atanga’s published comments in the Graffiti Times. These comments were found to violate Professional Conduct Rule 8.2(a), which provides that “[a] lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer or public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office.”1
In order to sanction Mr. Atanga for a violation of Professional Conduct Rule 8.2(a), the Disciplinary Commission was required to prove each element of the alleged violation by clear and convincing evidence. Ind.Admission and Discipline Rule 28(14)(f). In its de novo review, the majority relies on the hearing officer’s findings and conclusions to satisfy itself that this requirement was met. In my view, neither the hearing officer’s findings and conclusions nor the record itself demonstrates that the Commission met its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence.
In his findings, the hearing officer characterizes Mr. Atanga’s remarks as “derogatory” and as “criticism.” This is an insufficient factual basis upon which to find that Mr. Atanga’s remarks were made with “reckless disregard as to [their] truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge of the Tippecanoe Superior Court.” Likewise, I do not believe that such an inference can be drawn from the excerpt from the Graffiti Times included in the findings. None of these findings establish recklessness in any way. The Commission argues that Mr. Atanga had no verification for his statements prior to making them and they were therefore reckless. But unless a finding of fact is made that Mr. Atanga had no prior verification for his statements, such an argument should not be the basis for a conclusion *1260of recklessness and should not be the basis for discipline. I also note that the hearing officer makes no finding or conclusion that the Commission has proved the charges against Mr. Atanga by clear and convincing evidence. While adherence to this standard may probably be assumed, it would be better practice to have it specifically set forth.
In analyzing the appropriate sanction for lawyer misconduct, this court relies heavily upon the American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (“Standards”). E.g., In re Burchett (1994), Ind., 630 N.E.2d 205; In re Hanley (1994), Ind., 627 N.E.2d 800; In re Pitschke (1994), Ind., 627 N.E.2d 440. While by no means disposi-tive, the Standards provide a good measure of the proportionality of any particular sanction to the alleged misconduct. Standard 7.0 is applicable to the alleged misconduct in this case. That Standard provides as follows:
7.0 Violations of Other Duties Owed as Professional
7.1 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed to the profession with the intent to obtain a benefit for the lawyer or another, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client, the public, or the legal system.
7.2 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional, and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal áystem.
7.3 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional, and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system.
7.4 Admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in an isolated instance of negligence that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional, and causes little or no actual or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system.
Standards for Employing Lawyer Sanctions § 7.0 (American Bar Association, 1992).
Assuming Mr. Atanga did violate Professional Conduct Rule 8.2(a), that violation was clearly no more than an isolated instance that caused little or no actual or potential injury. The statements made by Mr. Atanga that are the subject of this proceeding appear at the very end of a long story covering parts of three pages in an obscure newsletter. For these statements of Mr. Atanga even to be read, an individual would first have to secure a copy of the Graffiti Times and read through 81 column inches of text, making two page jumps along the way, before getting to Mr. Atanga’s comments. Publication of these statements in such an obscure place cannot possibly cause injury. Publication of the majority’s opinion will, in all likelihood, get far more attention.
This court has repeatedly held that in disciplinary cases it is appropriate to consider factors in mitigation. In re Reed (1992), Ind., 599 N.E.2d 601; In re Roche (1989), Ind., 540 N.E.2d 36. Yet despite the presence of significant mitigating factors in this case, the majority ignores them altogether. A mitigating factor of some weight is the indignity to which Mr. Atanga was subjected in being required to represent his client in court while , wearing prison garb. Cf. In re Turner (1994), Ind., 631 N.E.2d 918, 920 (Shepard, C.J., dissenting). It is of greater weight that Mr. Atanga was respectful and deferential to the court in every way throughout the contempt proceeding and that he made no comments whatsoever to the news media which had been rounded up to cover the event. His comments came only some time later, after they had been solicited by the editor of an extraordinarily obscure newsletter. It should also not be left out of the balance that Mr. Atanga is a relatively new lawyer, In re Burton (1993), Ind., 625 N.E.2d 457, In re Matz (1990), Ind., 560 N.E.2d 66, and that he has, moreover, no prior record of disciplinary action. In re Schreiber (1994), Ind., 632 N.E.2d 362.
Entitled to much greater weight still is Mr. Atanga’s considerable record of service to both bar and community. In re Lebamoff (1994), Ind., 630 N.E.2d 560. In the very best tradition of our profession, Mr. Atanga devotes considerable time and effort to the *1261representation of indigent clients. Indeed, it was his highly commendable response to a request to represent an indigent, troubled young woman in Lafayette that gave rise to the unfortunate events in this case. Corollary to this is the fact that suspending Mr. Atanga from the practice of law for any period of time will deprive many Hoosiers who are financially unable to secure counsel of the benefit of Mr. Atanga’s representation. Furthermore, Mr. Atanga has been actively involved in service to the bar and currently serves as the president-elect of the Marion County Bar Association, an organization that makes a significant contribution to the legal profession not just in Indianapolis, but throughout the state.
Because the sanction imposed by the majority is not supported by sufficient evidence of misconduct, because it is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct, and because it fails to take into account significant mitigating factors, I dissent.

. The language used to describe the elements of the alleged offense and the Commission’s burden of proof here are identical to those necessary for a public figure to maintain a cause of action for defamation. In a defamation suit brought by a public official, the First Amendment requires the plaintifffpublic official to show that in publishing the defamatory statement the defendant acted with actual malice. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964). Actual malice is present when the defendant acts with knowledge that the defamatory statement was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974). The actual malice element must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). While these principles are most familiar in defamation actions against news media, e.g., Indianapolis Newspapers, Inc. v. Fields (1970), 254 Ind. 219, 259 N.E.2d 651, they apply with equal force in defamation actions against non-media defendants, e.g., Heeb v. Smith (1993), Ind.App., 613 N.E.2d 416. While In re Terry (1979), 271 Ind. 499, 394 N.E.2d 94, holds that we do not analyze charges of lawyer misconduct in the same way as charges of libel or defamation, that holding may be ripe for reexamination in light of the exalted constitutional status given "political speech" in Indiana by Price v. State (1993), Ind., 622 N.E.2d 954, petition for reh'g pending. If the obscenity Colleen Price screamed at an Indianapolis police officer constituted "popular comment on public concerns [that] should not be restrained,” Id. at 961, so too for Mr. Atanga's comments here.