Court Opinion

ID: 9538381
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:35:53.523212+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:50.119304
License: Public Domain

Rosellini, J.
(concurring) — I concur in the majority opinion and I cannot agree with the suggestion made in Justice Stafford's concurring opinion that this case is disposed of in a manner inconsistent with In re Salvesen, 94 Wn.2d 73, 614 P.2d 1264 (1980).
A most casual reading of the majority opinions in this case and in In re Salvesen reveals numerous dissimilarities which justify different results. Among others, these differences are:
1. Prior to disbarment proceedings in this case, Mr. All-per had been censured by the bar on two occasions and reprimanded on one. By contrast, Mr. Salvesen had never been previously disciplined.
2. Mr. Allper was uncooperative with the bar during the proceedings even to the extent of failing to appear at a *478hearing to which he had been subpoenaed. Mr. Salvesen was completely cooperative in all phases of the bar's investigation of his conduct.
3. Mr. Allper ignored an order of suspension, continued to practice law, and was found in contempt by this court.
4. One of his clients was forced to sue Mr. Allper in order to recover money to which the client was entitled. Allper repaid the amount due under the judgment only after disciplinary proceedings were started. Moreover, Mr. Allper never did repay one of his clients. By contrast, none of Mr. Salvesen's clients suffered any monetary loss.
5. Unlike Mr. Salvesen, Mr. Allper never showed any remorse for his conduct nor did he ever acknowledge the seriousness of the allegations.
6. Mr. Allper resisted efforts at rehabilitation and continued his improper conduct right up to the time of the hearing in this court. Mr. Salvesen, on the other hand, was not suspended from the practice of law pending disciplinary proceedings, and successfully conducted his law business to the satisfaction of the bar association during that interim.
All of these factors led the majority in Salvesen to conclude that there was a significant likelihood that the respondent would be rehabilitated. There is no similar prospect here.
Utter, C.J., and Dolliver and Williams, JJ., concur with Rosellini, J.