Court Opinion

ID: 9571008
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:28:25.072598+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:11.236703
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HASSELL,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority that the Disciplinary Board did not err in finding that James Gay violated Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(4), 6-101 (B), 6-101(C), 9-102(B)(3) and 9-102(B)(4). I dissent, however, because I am concerned that Gay’s punishment appears to be greater than punishments imposed upon attorneys who committed disciplinary violations similar to or more egregious than the violations committed by Gay.
*411Gay’s license was suspended for three years. I am unable to discern from the record why Gay received this harsh punishment. I do not agree with the Disciplinary Board that it is sufficient to respond to this issue by merely stating that the punishment imposed upon Gay falls within the range of permissible punishments which may be imposed. This response does not explain the disparity in punishments. Rather, I agree with the concerns which Justice Tilomas raised in Delk v. Virginia State Bar, 233 Va. 187, 195, 355 S.E.2d 558, 563 (1987) (Thomas, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part):
In the instant appeal, I perceive a problem that may affect the entire system. I am unable to discern from this record whether the Disciplinary Board has taken any precautions to insure that the punishment of attorneys does not vary, without justification, from district to district, case to case, male attorney to female attorney, black attorney to white attorney. To protect against the foregoing, I would institute certain changes in the way in which punishment is decided upon.
Gay is entitled to know the exact reason that his punishment is more severe than punishments received by lawyers who committed similar or more egregious violations.