Court Opinion

ID: 9532983
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:27:01.671927+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:53.200202
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE MILLER, dissenting: I do not agree with the majority’s conclusion that a two-year suspension is the appropriate sanction in this case. In my view, the respondent should be disbarred. Regarding the misconduct involved in this proceeding, the record reveals that the respondent, during a prior suspension imposed by this court, met with clients, accepted money from them, and offered them legal advice. Separately, the respondent made a false statement on a petition seeking admission pro hac vice in a criminal matter before a federal court in Alaska, later neglected the defendant’s appeal in that case, and refused to return the defendant’s fee. The respondent’s history of misconduct includes the suspension previously imposed by this court, which arose from the respondent’s neglect of two clients’ claims, his failure to promptly refund client fees, and his conversion of client funds. In addition, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit suspended the respondent from practicing before that court for his neglect of criminal appeals. The respondent also received a reprimand from the Review Board based on the federal court suspension and his neglect of another criminal case. The respondent’s record of misconduct in this case and in prior matters warrants a more severe sanction than the two-year suspension imposed by the majority. Because of the respondent’s history of sanctions and misconduct, I believe that disbarment is appropriate here. JUSTICE HEIPLE joins in this dissent.