Court Opinion

ID: 9543608
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:47:02.008582+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:40.800899
License: Public Domain

CORCORAN, Justice,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. Respondent’s misconduct in 7 separate instances occurred between 1979 and 1982. His misconduct was not reported to the State Bar of Arizona until August 1985, when some of the clients successfully prosecuted a malpractice action against him in Pima County Superior Court and were awarded a judgment of approximately $90,000.00. The trial judge, Robert Buchanan, and one of the clients filed a complaint with the State Bar. See Canon 3(B)(3), Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct; In re Himmel, 125 Ill.2d 531, 127 Ill.Dec. 708, 533 N.E.2d 790 (1988).
Although an order of probable cause was issued by bar counsel on March 21, 1986, a formal complaint was not filed until January 24, 1989. This “dead” time resulted in large part because of the difficulty Chief Bar Counsel had in securing volunteer bar counsel. Two attorneys were appointed before Mr. Smith was secured to act as volunteer bar counsel. Since then, he has handled this case expeditiously. It may be necessary for the State Bar of Arizona to hire more attorneys to staff a trial section in bar counsel’s office.
I believe that Respondent’s egregious misconduct requires disbarment. I agree with the hearing committee of the State Bar which concluded:
We believe that Respondent failed to rise even to the level of ethics required of the average business man, and we believe that, as an attorney, Respondent should have adhered to a higher standard of ethics than that expected of a member of the general public.
Respondent should be disbarred.
FRANK X. GORDON, Jr., J. (Retired) and JAMES DUKE CAMERON, J. (Retired) did not participate in this matter.
JOHN L. CLABORNE, J., Court of Appeals, Division One, was designated to sit in the place of GORDON, J. under Ariz. Const, art. 6, § 3.
APPENDIX A
Disciplinary Rules which were in force during the period involved.
DR 5-104(A):
A lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client if they have differing interests therein and if the client expects the lawyer to exercise his professional judgment therein for the protection of the client, unless the client has consented after full disclosure.
DR 5-105:
(A) A lawyer shall decline proffered employment if the exercise of his independent professional judgment in behalf of a client will be or is likely to be adversely affected by the acceptance of. the proffered employment, or if it would be likely to involve him in representing differing interests, except to the extent permitted under DR 5-105(C).
(C) In the situations covered by DR 5-105(A) and (B), a lawyer may represent multiple clients if it is obvious that he can adequately represent the interest of each and if each consents to the representation after full disclosure of the possible effect of such representa*257tion on the exercise of his independent professional judgment on behalf of each.
DR 7-101:
(A) A lawyer shall not intentionally:
(3) Prejudice or damage his client during the course of the professional relationship except as required under DR 7-102(B).