This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
An attorney, acting as a prosecutor, engaged in misconduct during a DUI trial by instructing a police officer to impersonate a key witness who was unavailable. The attorney misrepresented the officer as the arresting officer to the court, defense counsel, and the defendant, leading to a plea agreement. The defendant later discovered the deception, resulting in the withdrawal of the plea and dismissal of the charges. The attorney self-reported his actions, which were widely publicized (paras 2-5).
Procedural History
- Disciplinary Board: Found the attorney violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct and recommended probation for 18 months, passing the ethics portion of the bar exam, and other rehabilitative measures (paras 6-7).
- Disciplinary Board Panel: Increased the recommended sanctions to an 18-month suspension, deferred upon compliance with probationary terms (para 7).
Parties' Submissions
- Disciplinary Board: Argued for sanctions due to the attorney's intentional misconduct, which undermined public trust and the integrity of the justice system (paras 6-8).
- Attorney (Pro Se): Admitted to the factual allegations and some rule violations, citing mitigating factors such as self-reporting, lack of prior misconduct, and potential for rehabilitation (paras 6, 10).
Legal Issues
- Did the attorney's actions violate the Rules of Professional Conduct?
- What is the appropriate sanction for the attorney's misconduct?
Disposition
- The attorney was suspended from practicing law for six months, followed by a 12-month probation period with specific conditions (paras 11-12).
Reasons
Per curiam:
The Court found that the attorney's intentional misconduct, including dishonesty and abuse of public trust, warranted a suspension to uphold the integrity of the justice system and deter similar behavior. While the Disciplinary Board's recommended probationary measures were deemed appropriate for rehabilitation, the Court determined that a period of actual suspension was necessary to address the gravity of the misconduct. Mitigating factors, such as the attorney's self-reporting, lack of prior misconduct, and potential for rehabilitation, were considered in determining the six-month suspension and subsequent probationary terms (paras 8-10).