Court: Alaska Supreme Court; April 6, 2018; Alaska; State Supreme Court
Bar Counsel for the Alaska Bar Association and attorney Jeffrey H. Vance have agreed to a stipulation for discipline, resulting in a six-month suspension from practicing law and a requirement to pay $1,000 in costs. The Disciplinary Board of the Bar Association has approved this stipulation, which is supported by an independent legal analysis affirming the appropriateness of the six-month suspension for Vance's misconduct.
The relevant facts include that Vance inherited a personal injury claim for a client who died before the claim was settled. After being appointed as the personal representative for the deceased client's mother, Vance facilitated the acceptance of a settlement offer from the insurance company. However, when the signed release from the mother did not arrive by the statute of limitations deadline, Vance fabricated a release with a forged signature and notarized it improperly. This fraudulent release was submitted to the insurance company, which later questioned its authenticity. Upon admitting to the misconduct, Vance caused the insurance company to reject the release and stop payment on the settlement check.
Vance is to serve his suspension and pay the specified costs within 60 days of the order's issuance, which will take effect 30 days after being issued in accordance with Alaska Bar Rule 28(c).
Vance promptly reported his conduct to the senior partner of his law firm and subsequently filed a lawsuit to preserve a claim for Client before resigning from the firm. The Law Firm continued to represent Client's estate, which settled the lawsuit with the defendant before an answer was filed, under the same terms as the original offer. The Insurance Company did not hire a defense lawyer or incur legal fees, and the Law Firm waived its contingent fee, allowing the estate to receive the entire settlement.
Following an investigation, the Alaska Attorney General charged Vance with attempting to commit a fraudulent insurance act, classified as a Class A misdemeanor. Under a plea agreement, the district court imposed a suspended entry of judgment with one year of probation, contingent upon Vance paying a $1,000 fine and completing 80 hours of community service. The court's clerk notified the Alaska Bar Association of this judgment, leading to a review by the Supreme Court regarding potential disciplinary action for Vance's alleged misconduct.
Vance admitted to violating Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct (ARPC) 8.4(b) for committing a criminal act that adversely reflects on his honesty and trustworthiness, and 8.4(c) for engaging in dishonesty and fraud. The analysis for sanctions will follow the American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, which evaluate factors including the duty violated, Vance's mental state, and any actual or potential injury caused by his misconduct. Vance's actions breached his duty of integrity, and he acknowledged that he acted with intent when he fabricated a signature and notarized it falsely.
Vance's actions did not financially harm the Client's estate or the Insurance Company; however, there were potential reputational risks for the Insurance Company, as public knowledge of Vance's conduct could suggest tolerance for fraudulent documents. The Alaska Lieutenant Governor reprimanded the notary public whose stamp Vance utilized for failing to secure his notary seal. Vance's misconduct negatively impacted the Law Firm's reputation and finances, leading to a temporary increase in scrutiny of documents from the firm by the Insurance Company, and a decision by the Law Firm to waive over $5,000 in fees. Regardless of a criminal conviction, Vance's fabrication of a legal document undermines public trust in the justice system and the integrity of the legal profession.
Disciplinary measures for violating ARPC 8.4(b) and (c) are governed by ABA Standards, which state that disbarment is appropriate for serious criminal conduct that affects justice or involves dishonesty. Suspension may be suitable for other criminal behavior that adversely impacts a lawyer's fitness.
In terms of aggravating factors, Vance had substantial legal experience since his admission in 2001, which is considered an aggravating factor. Although he violated two ethics rules, the aggravating factors related to multiple offenses or pattern misconduct do not apply as his actions constituted a single event. The illegal conduct factor is not applicable as it is already encompassed in the ARPC violation Vance admitted to, and there are no additional aggravating factors present.
Mitigating factors in Vance's case include:
1. No prior disciplinary record, as per ABA Standards 9.32(a).
2. Timely efforts to rectify his misconduct, including filing a civil claim to protect the Client's interests and offering to reimburse the Law Firm for lost income, which was declined. He attempted to apologize to the Client’s mother but was unable to connect before leaving the firm.
3. Prompt admission of misconduct and full cooperation during the Bar's investigation (ABA Standards 9.32(e)).
4. A good character reputation aside from this incident, aligning with ABA Standards 9.32(g).
5. Suffering from significant penalties, including job loss, involvement in a criminal investigation leading to probation for a Class A misdemeanor, a $1,000 fine, and 80 hours of community service. The Supreme Court is also considering his interim suspension under Bar Rule 26. These penalties serve as a deterrent to others.
6. Demonstrated sincere remorse for the harm caused (ABA Standards 9.32(l)).
Additional mitigating factors not listed in ABA Standards include the isolated nature of his misconduct, which was impulsive and intended to protect the Client's estate, and the lack of direct financial benefit from the fabricated release as a salaried employee.
It is agreed by Vance and the Bar Association that mitigating factors significantly outweigh any aggravating factors. Comparatively, in In re West, 805 P.2d 351 (Alaska 1991), the Court suspended a lawyer for ninety days for similar misconduct, emphasizing the importance of analyzing sanctions in light of related cases and authorities.
Vance and the Bar Association reviewed Alaska cases involving disciplinary actions against lawyers for fabricating legal documents. Notable cases include: In re Stump (1980), resulting in a five-year suspension for fabricating a document and swearing to its authenticity; In re Walton (1983), leading to an eighteen-month suspension for altering and filing a document; and In re Hanlon (2005), which resulted in a three-year suspension for fabricating settlement documents and misleading the Bar. Additional unreported cases included In re Purdy (1999), where a five-year suspension was imposed for forgery and false testimony, and In re Kellicut (2012), which resulted in disbarment for fabricating a prenuptial agreement and submitting false disclosures.
The Bar Association noted the varying lengths of suspensions and disbarments, emphasizing that severe penalties were justified in cases compounded by self-interest, attempts to conceal wrongdoing, and denials of misconduct. In contrast, they concluded that Vance's misconduct, along with mitigating factors, did not necessitate a lengthy suspension. They agreed to a six-month suspension, subject to approval, and Vance must pay $1,000 in Bar costs. Vance consented to this discipline voluntarily, acknowledging the allegations without coercion. The stipulation has been revised for clarity and compliance with court requirements.
