Narrative Opinion Summary
This disciplinary case involves a two-count complaint against an attorney admitted to practice in 1972, for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The first count pertains to an incident on December 23, 1984, where the attorney was arrested for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, with a blood alcohol content of 0.26, and found in possession of marijuana. He pled guilty to the intoxication charge, while the marijuana charge was dismissed. The second count concerns the attorney's representation of a client in 1982, during which he violated jail regulations by providing alcohol to the client, who was in protective custody. Despite an investigation and grand jury proceedings, no indictment followed. In reaching a resolution, the Court considered mitigating factors such as the Respondent's cooperation and pro bono service. The parties agreed to a 60-day suspension with automatic reinstatement, conditioned upon payment of costs. This sanction reflects the balance between accountability for professional misconduct and recognition of mitigating circumstances. The suspension is set to commence on December 6, 1990.
Legal Issues Addressed
Disciplinary Proceedings and Sanctionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Respondent agreed to a 60-day suspension with automatic reinstatement, highlighting the disciplinary process's focus on both accountability and rehabilitation.
Reasoning: The agreed sanction is a 60-day suspension with automatic reinstatement, contingent on the payment of costs.
Impairment of Professional Conduct through Criminal Actssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Respondent's actions, including possession of marijuana and provision of alcohol to an inmate, were determined to impair his professional conduct.
Reasoning: However, his possession of marijuana and provision of alcohol to an inmate reflect negatively on his fitness to practice law.
Mitigating Factors in Disciplinary Actionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Respondent's cooperation with authorities and history of pro bono work were considered mitigating factors in determining the disciplinary sanction.
Reasoning: Mitigating factors include Hirschauer's cooperation with authorities and his record of pro bono work.
Violation of Code of Professional Responsibilitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Respondent violated multiple provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, including engaging in illegal conduct and actions that adversely reflect on one's fitness to practice law.
Reasoning: Jay T. Hirschauer is charged in a two-count disciplinary complaint for violating D.R. 1-102(A)(3, 4, 5, and 6) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.