Court Opinion

ID: 9580978
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:10:49.432383+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:38.338135
License: Public Domain

HARRIS, Justice
(concurring).
I concur in the majority opinion and write separately only to address matters raised in the dissent.
It is conceded that the respondent swore to false answers when certifying he had filed income tax returns he had not. This *461fact reflects adversely on the respondent, and this reflection is not affected by how one views the appropriateness of the falsely answered questions. So long as the' questions regarding income tax filings are asked, a false answer will, as it does in this case, reveal much concerning the character of a lawyer who answers it falsely.
I vigorously challenge the contention that we can neatly compartmentalize the truthfulness of this respondent. Could we seriously suppose that a lawyer who would falsely swear to a statement to a commission of this court would be any less likely to tell a “white” lie to his client or to another attorney? Nor do I agree that the false certification is in any way tempered because the situation places the lawyer in what the dissent characterizes as “a strong temptation to lie.” The practice of law is honeycombed with temptations and the first requirement of a lawyer is to never yield to them.
The temptation to which the dissent refers proves the appropriateness of the income tax question on the annual report to the client security commission. Cheating on income taxes is dishonest and victimizes all other taxpayers. Income tax returns are the heart and lungs of our system of tax collections.
The usefulness of the legal profession rests upon the integrity and basic honesty of its members, subjective matters which are not easy to measure or to test. A time-honored method of testing credibility •is to question persons on matters which can easily be proven or disproven. There is nothing unfair in asking attorneys to certify they have complied with a clear statutory duty which is required of all citizens.
It is disappointing that even an extremely small number of lawyers continue to fail to comply with our tax laws and are willing to falsely certify they have complied. But to abandon our policy at this time would adversely affect public confidence in our determination to police the profession. Abandonment would thus be unfair to the legal profession, which is composed almost entirely, though unfortunately not quite unanimously, of men and women of impeccable character who are meticulous about the requirements of law.