 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Matter of Ockrassa9/18/1990
awyer's own interests, or whether the representation will adversely affect another client, and causes injury or potential injury to a client." The commentary to that standard notes that " ourts also impose reprimands in cases of subsequent representation."
In choosing between an informal reprimand and suspension, we consider respondent's prior disciplinary violations as aggravating circumstances, rather than as
separate counts of the complaint. Rule 54(k)(4), Rules of the Supreme Court; see In re Wines, 135 Ariz. 203, 206, 660 P.2d 454, 457 (1983). Standard 8.2 recommends suspension when "a lawyer has been reprimanded for the same or similar misconduct and engages in further acts of misconduct that cause injury or potential injury to a client, the public, the legal system, or the profession." Because respondent has demonstrated an insensitivity to conflicts of interest evidenced by a pattern of misconduct, we find that suspension is the appropriate sanction. We adopt the Commission's recommendation that respondent be suspended for a period of 90 days.
We must tailor the discipline in each situation to the individual facts of the case to achieve the purposes of discipline. Wines, 135 Ariz. at 207, 660 P.2d at 458. Although Standard 2.3 recommends that suspensions be equal to or greater than 6 months, we believe that a 90-day suspension is appropriate in this case. Respondent is a public lawyer who is unlikely to receive any income during the period of his suspension, unlike lawyers in private practice who may continue to receive fees from work performed before the suspension.
Disposition
Respondent is suspended from the practice of law for a period of 90 days and ordered to pay the State Bar $1,595.27 in costs and expenses.
Judges Footnotes
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Arizona DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|