Narrative Opinion Summary
In this legal disciplinary case, an attorney appealed against the Alaska Bar Association's Disciplinary Board's findings on two charges. The first charge alleged a violation of Disciplinary Rule 7-105(A), wherein the attorney threatened criminal charges to leverage a civil dispute, while the second involved practicing law while suspended. The attorney argued that his actions were protected under free speech provisions and did not constitute practicing law. The court dismissed the free speech defense, citing established professional standards that restrict such conduct. The court found the attorney's actions negligent rather than intentional, applying ABA Standards to determine sanctions. Initially, a private reprimand and a sixty-day suspension were recommended by the Board, but the court, considering aggravating factors like prior disciplinary history, opted for a three-month suspension—one month for the first charge and two months for the second. The decision underscores the legal profession's emphasis on maintaining ethical practices and the repercussions of boundary violations during suspension.
Legal Issues Addressed
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors in Disciplinary Actionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The absence of a dishonest motive was a mitigating factor, but multiple aggravating factors, including prior disciplinary offenses and substantial legal experience, influenced the court's decision to impose a suspension.
Reasoning: Upon evaluating aggravating and mitigating factors, only one mitigating factor applies: the absence of a dishonest motive, indicating Burrell's intention to assist his clients. Conversely, several aggravating factors exist: Burrell's history of disciplinary offenses, his refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing, and his substantial legal experience of seventeen years.
Sanctions for Negligent Violationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied Standard 6.23, suggesting a reprimand as the appropriate sanction for Burrell's negligent violation of DR 7-105(A).
Reasoning: As a result, the court decided to apply Standard 6.23, suggesting a reprimand as the appropriate sanction.
Threat of Criminal Charges in Civil Matterssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Burrell violated DR 7-105(A) by sending a letter that threatened criminal charges to gain an advantage in a civil dispute.
Reasoning: Regarding Disciplinary Rule 7-105(A), which prohibits lawyers from threatening criminal charges to gain an advantage in civil matters, the court determined that Burrell violated this rule by sending a letter on March 11, 1985, that included a threat of criminal action while seeking recovery for his client.
Unauthorized Practice of Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Burrell's actions constituted unauthorized practice as he continued to represent a client and provide legal advice while suspended.
Reasoning: Burrell’s actions were deemed unauthorized practice as he was both representing a client and providing legal advice while suspended.