In the Disciplinary Matter Involving Cyrus
2010 Alas. LEXIS 117
| Alaska | 2010Background
- Cyrus, an Alaska attorney, was on interim suspension and challenged the Disciplinary Board's sanctions.
- Board recommended five-year suspension with two years stayed, followed by three years of probation requiring employment as an attorney only for an agency or firm.
- Cyrus agreed to a suspension followed by probation but sought one additional year stayed to permit pro bono work under supervision.
- Initial misconduct leading to this matter traces back to 2006–2007 suspensions and a 2008–2009 wave of complaints from six state district judges about his court conduct; Cyrus did not respond to bar letters, triggering disciplinary consequences.
- In 2009 the Bar pursued formal charges alleging violations of competence, diligence, communication, expedition, and failure to answer disciplinary charges; Cyrus admitted to the misconduct at hearing and waived liability for the liability phase.
- The Alaska Supreme Court ultimately imposed the Board’s sanctions, retroactive to Cyrus’s interim suspension in March 2009, and rejected a pro bono special-condition proposal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the Board's sanctions appropriate? | Cyrus accepts discipline but seeks an alternative supervised pro bono option. | Bar contends Board’s five-year suspension with two years stayed and three-year probation is appropriate given pattern of neglect. | Yes; sanctions upheld as appropriate to protect the public and profession. |
| Should Cyrus be allowed to practice pro bono during the final year of suspension under supervision? | Special condition permitting supervised pro bono work should be allowed. | Public protection requires full restraint; no pro bono during unstayed period. | No; such a conditional/supervised pro bono option is not appropriate. |
| Do aggravating/mitigating factors justify the Board's severity of sanctions? | Multiple offenses and pattern of neglect support harsher discipline; mitigating factor exists (no dishonest motive). | Mitigating factor reduces severity; prior discipline weighs against disbarment. | Aggravating factors support suspension; lack of dishonest motive mitigates but does not foreclose suspension or probation. |
| Did Cyrus's mental state (knowingly) and injury to clients justify discipline? | Knowingly neglect and delay harmed clients and the system. | Acknowledged misconduct; prior disciplinary history increases risk but not dishonesty. | Yes; knowingly violating duties with potential client/system injury justified sanctions. |
| Should the sanction be retroactive to the date of interim suspension? | Functionally accelerates remedy to reflect ongoing misconduct. | Board's recommendation and Alaska standards support retroactive application to protect the public. | Yes; sanctions imposed retroactively to March 2009. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Brion, 212 P.3d 748 (Alaska 2009) (three-year suspension with two years stayed for neglect and communication failures)
- In re Hanlon, 110 P.3d 937 (Alaska 2005) (ABA standards and sanctions framework for attorney discipline)
- In re Buckalew, 731 P.2d 48 (Alaska 1986) (principles on public protection and probationary terms)
- In re Friedman, 23 P.3d 620 (Alaska 2001) (ABA standards and consideration of aggravating/mitigating factors)
- In re West, 805 P.2d 351 (Alaska 1991) (methodology for reviewing disciplinary board decisions)