Court Opinion

ID: 9710165
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:03:39.784973+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:54.816910
License: Public Domain

SHEPARD, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
As a client, Gary Smoot might not have fully appreciated his legal duty to comply with the orders of courts. He likely relied on his lawyers, Donald Dunnuck and Kevin Scionti, whom we expect to know better. As a result of relying on his lawyers, Mr. Smoot spent 90 days in jail for his comtempt. Today, Mr. Smoot's lawyer gets a better deal-a simple reprimand. This differential in treatment is not justified by mitigating circumstances or by any expression of regret by respondent Scionti. Indeed, as he stood before Judge Newman explaining his advice to his client, Scionti did not express any apology. As he stands before us charged by the Disciplinary Commission and found by the hearing officer to have committed misconduct, Scionti continues to argue that he did not violate Rule 1.2 and that the Commission has not proven he did anything prejudicial to the administration of justice (a violation of Rule 8.2). I think it was prejudicial The authority of our courts depends on lawyers and their clients obeying court orders. Mr. Scionti's conduct undermines that authority and for that reason he should be subject to more severe sanction.
SULLIVAN, J., concurs.