In the Disciplinary Matter Involving Stepovich, 386 P.3d 1205

Attorney Michael A. Stepovich, reinstated after a prior suspension (2006 decision), drafted a dying friend’s will in May 2009 and was named as the sole contingent beneficiary; the friend died ~6 weeks later but Stepovich received nothing because the primary beneficiary survived.
Bar charged Stepovich with violating Alaska Rule of Professional Conduct 1.8(c) (lawyer must not prepare an instrument giving the lawyer a substantial gift from a client).
Stepovich and Bar Counsel originally stipulated the violation was negligent and recommended public censure; the Area Hearing Committee found gross negligence and recommended public censure.
The Disciplinary Board rejected censure as too lenient given Stepovich’s prior discipline and recommended a six-month suspension, noting the conduct occurred during a stayed one-year suspension from the earlier matter.
The Alaska Supreme Court reviewed de novo the sanction, concluded Stepovich acted knowingly (not merely negligently), weighed aggravating and mitigating factors, imposed a 12‑month suspension (effective 30 days after opinion), and required passing the MPRE as a condition of reinstatement; the Court declined to impose the stayed one‑year suspension because the new misconduct was not the same or similar to the prior trust‑account violations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mental state for Rule 1.8(c) violation	Bar: conduct warrants greater than negligence; Board viewed as at least gross negligence	Stepovich: he should have known but did not know; stipulated negligence	Court: Stepovich acted knowingly (knew he named himself and the conflict was obvious)
Appropriate sanction	Bar/Board: six‑month suspension justified given prior discipline; Bar counsel argued any suspension should not be long	Stepovich: public censure (as stipulated) / Committee recommended censure	Court: 12‑month suspension (six‑month baseline for knowing conflict plus aggravators)
Effect of prior stayed suspension (same or similar misconduct)	Board: prior violation is significant aggravator and occurred while stayed suspension in effect; oral view suggested similar conduct	Stepovich: 2006 suspended conduct (trust‑account misappropriation) is different and limited to trust violations	Court: violation is not the same or similar to prior trust‑account misconduct; do not impose the stayed year, but treat prior discipline as a significant aggravator
Reinstatement condition	Bar: require appropriate remediation	Stepovich: argued lack of awareness of rule; no separate position on MPRE recorded	Court: require Stepovich to take and pass the MPRE before reinstatement

In re Stepovich, 143 P.3d 963 (Alaska 2006) (prior suspension and stayed year condition)
In re Cyrus, 241 P.3d 890 (Alaska 2010) (three‑step sanction analysis and ABA Standards guidance)
In re Rice, 260 P.3d 1020 (Alaska 2011) (deference to Board findings; independent sanctioning review)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Md. v. Stein, 819 A.2d 372 (Md. 2003) (indefinite suspension for preparing a self‑benefitting will; discussion of harms when lawyer drafts will naming self)
In re Polevoy, 980 P.2d 985 (Colo. 1999) (one‑year+ suspension for drafting a self‑benefitting will for a vulnerable client)
In re Boulger, 637 N.W.2d 710 (N.D. 2001) (private reprimand where attorney drafted a will naming himself as contingent devisee and court found negligence without aggravators)