*1 participate. Bevilacqua C. did not Chief Julius Justice Romney Wegner, Attorney General, Michaelson, Judith Attorney plaintiff. F. General, Special for Assistant John Cicilline, defendant. for

August 22, 1977 March A. Bucci. On 77-284. M. P. No. re Andrew jury by grand the federal filed 21, 1975, an indictment respondent, charging the of Connecticut the District state, in a the bar of Bucci, member of A. Andrew §241, 18 U.S.C. violation of with the indictment five-count citi- oppress, injure, and intimidate conspiracy threaten to 1); (count of 18U.S.C. the violation United States zen of the instigate, wilfully command, suborn, did §1623 §2, take an procure, client to aid and abet his counsel, induce, (counts 2, the court before declaration oath and make false conspire did 4); §371, of 18 U.S.C. and the violation 3 and given the court to oath declarations under to have false (count respondent was 5).1 September 3, 1975, the On January 30, jury by 1. On guilty of count found another 3, 2, counts guilty 1976, another he was found judgment of justice Subsequently, entered a and 5. April 1976, re- acquittal 4. 2, 3 and On on counts days, sus- spondent execution of 10 received sentence pended, count 5. on conviction, February having 26, 1976, learned of such

On Sup. provisionsof in accordance with the we issued an order appear ordering respondent us on before Ct. R. Thursday, if he a.m., with counsel March 1976 at 9:30 any why preferred, cause, his admission if show ^iad, revoked, suspended.2 to the bar should not be Marrapese, client claim of one William a former on the 1Theindictment is based perjure in a criminal case advised him to himself respondent, that the latter had attorney. Mr. Mar his Marrapese was the defendant in which principal respondent’s trial. witness at rapese government’s was the this state practice in 2Sup. “An admitted Ct. R. 43 reads as follows: *2 The and asked that we defendant appeared postpone any filed. We action because of motion which had post-trial acquiesced. 3, 1976,

On in accordance with the provisions June 43, we Ct. R. ordered to Sup. again appear a.m., before this court on 1976 at 9:30 Thursday, June to show cause his to the bar be why admission should not revoked or The and suspended. respondent again appeared informed us that he had filed an which was appeal pending. He to asked us action again and we postpone any agreed. 15, 1977,

On learned that April having respondent’s ap- denied, had been in accordance with the peal provisions Rule we ordered to before us again appear 21, 1977, on to show cause his April admission to why bar should not be revoked or suspended. and we offered him respondent appeared an oppor- to us with

tunity provide matters in extenuation or any mitigation.

In response submitted a written statement us to him the urging spare or disbar- ignominy suspension ment and the resultant which would hardship necessarily follow from such action. He to his excellent pointed prior as a reputation state, member of the bar of this to ex- his cellent citizens, his fellow and standing among to the re- he had spect for so enjoyed many courts of this years and other states where he has tried cases for almost 25 years.

He also to our attention brought the statement made by the United States District tes- Judge concerning Marrapese’s when he timony sentenced said: respondent. Judge

“I tried to caution the about any attaching credence to his testimony. who is convicted in a court of record punishable by of a crime imprison- which is ment year for more than any one jurisdiction, may, this or other in lieu of or in advance of proceedings pursuant appear Rule be ordered to before the court why

to show cause his admission to the bar suspended.” should be revoked or had no a man who himself as certainly

“He painted had frequently of an oath sanctity for the regard his own authorities Government lied deliberately advantage. case, was, sympathetic

“I throughout the facts know all try who has to of a lawyer plight an is still under client’s defense to his pertaining client. of his confidence to protect obligation of what of a knotty problem that kind “There is be his client may he knows that when duty lawyer’s *3 to commit per- be or may going committing perjury about where kind of ethical problem That’s the jury. to what the right as there is difference opinion answer is.” conviction are in respondent’s

The events which resulted other here no repetition recorded elsewhere require in the the record that we have examined than to out point from what fair to assume with care. It is federal proceedings ver- he the said, that, even accepted though judge he did it rested on credibility, dict of the because of Marrapese, attach much credence to the testimony not have witness, would main Government’s probably without a heard the case found if he had respondent guilty jury. of Mar- the trial assessment judge’s

Notwithstanding a member before us as stands testimony, respondent rapese’s to according who has been convicted of the bar of this state in- cannot federal offense. We question law of a serious or the Court in the District of the entered judgment tegrity that judgment. action of the Circuit Court affirming us, the record before conduct, as evidenced by respondent’s in- The troublesome question action. warrants disciplinary which the nature action the extent of the disciplinary volves convicted compels of which stands respondent charge to us us to There is no set formula guide perform- impose. our but it is to in mind at all times ing duty, imperative keep interest involved in of in- only permitting persons that, It law. is true tegrity engage practice by virtue court, of his in- conviction in the federal respondent’s has been tegrity tarnished. severely In the extent of the we action evaluating disciplinary should we are decide, were, called it impose, upon whether has been tarnished integrity beyond In we have the of cer- repair. making benefit judgment tain comments made the trial judge. imposing which 10-day sentence, the trial ex- suspended, judge stated that he was satisfied that pressly would never commit this kind of an offense in the future and that he saw no reason for him on He also putting probation. out that so far as the pointed element of retribution or concerned, punishment would be punished the action that enough by would be taken with to his respect to continue to right privilege law. practice in mind the nature of the Keeping charges against and all of the circumstances the in- surrounding dictment, conviction, trial and comments including the trial we judge, proceed a sanction which we impose *4 consider and fair to appropriate the as well to the as public respondent. Because we are that the persuaded respondent’s has not been integrity we refrain damaged beyond repair, from the Instead, sanction of disbarment. imposing we order that be and he is from hereby suspended engaging of law practice one month from the of beginning entry this order court; and until further order of this provided, however, that a upon of in satisfactory showing compliance order, faith with good this for reinstatement on may apply or after the 22nd 1979, of day in accordance with September the of Rule 42-15 provisions of this Court.3 brief. such brief be filed on or before deem 3On By July order returned on 27, ^[1977] motion waived. July August filed a motion for leave to file a 1977 we 1977. No brief granted the motion and ordered that having been supplemental filed, we My dissenting. Brothers have Kelleher Mr. Justice respon- the obligation of trial court with confused justice, imposing 10-day a that ours. trial in sibilities are dealing a with the as suspended sentence, was lawyer. dealing him as a We citizen, we are whereas punishment as but with our such concerned with are not practice regulator of duty, of as the sole and exclusive uphold highest standards jurisdiction, this law within public thereby protecting from professional conduct, of attorney’s unscrupulous practitioner. re- An the unfit or persons sponsibilities who are not from of differ those duty profession. legal Likewise, this Court’s of the members judge who of a is ad- from that to the differs ministering the criminal law. underlying proceeding to be in is issue such years ago promulgated rule

found in Lord Mansfield Cowp. (1778): Bounsall, 2 Ex Parte question is, whether, after of this the conduct “[T]he proper man, that continue a member of it is he should suspicion profession all free from which should stand way punishment; but the court on ... It is not of discretion, whether a man cases, such exercise their proper person they formerly admitted, whom have to be continued on the roll or not.” disciplinary pro- application a recent An of this rule to prompted ceeding an was disbarred which Maryland Appeals: following comment from the Court more of a crime which strikes “It is to conceive difficult system justice very than of our at fundamentals perjury.” Attorney Grievance subornation Green, 365 A.2d v. 278 Md. Comm’n *5 remarkably us, the one before Moreover, in a similar to case lawyer’s plea rejecting Supreme Court, in the California suborning perjury, remarked: he not be disbarred actively procure or know- at “For an law to utterly perjury ingly countenance the commission reprehensible. reprehensible far more within It is profession one who is not than when committed unworthy lawyer. person of the office It marks such attorney. professions, members of Above all other honesty; scrupulous in be most their the Bar should scrupulous in that which in their own conduct and they only advise, exact of their but should they present employees, their clients and the witnesses Allen, 2d P.2d to the court.” In re 52 Cal. Rptr. 609, 134 Cal. provisions

The relevant of our Code Professional may Responsibility dealing be found in with such matters Lawyer Represent Zealously 7, “A A Client Canon Should Within the of the Law.”: Bounds Disciplinary prohibit

“EC 7-26. The law Rules testimony perjured fraudulent, false, or the use of lawyer knowingly participates in evidence. A who testimony subject introduction of or evidence is such * * * discipline. << * ^[*] ^[*] Representing A

“DR 7-102. Client Within The Law. Bounds Of lawyer

(A) representation client, of a shall his not: testimony

(4) Knowingly perjured or false use evidence.

(6) Participate preservation in the creation or evidence when he knows or it is obvious that evidence is false.

(7) Counsel or assist client in conduct that the his lawyer illegal knows to be or fraudulent.” Supreme recently “[a]ny Court noted that violation of these strictures would constitute a most seriousbreach of the attorney’s duty accordingly.” court, to the to be treated

910 n.3, 80, 90 96 S. Ct. States, 425 U.S. v. United Geders (1976). 592, 600 n.3 2d n.3, Ed. 47 L. 1336 primary purpose a explaining that the court, after One punishment but the vindica- disciplinary not sanction in preservation confidence the bar of the tion and suggested justice, that the has and the administration determining employed following ultimate criteria be discipline: measure of offender, which

“(1) punishment should be of the a penalty (2) reoccurrence; prevent suffi- sufficient practitioners engaging from in such cient to deter other punishment (3) restore and conduct; sufficient to and dignity pro- respect and of the for the honor maintain who the services of fession, and to those seek assure lawyers penalties unprofessional for conduct that strictly Smith, 85 Wash. 2d will enforced.” re be P.2d leniency justice’sdisposi- earlier, trial As noted of the of a irrelevant to the issuebefore us. tion criminal offenseis pre- respondent’s criminal Our concern should not be with integrity of the but with the maintenance of the dilections justice, Bar. Rhode Island sure, would I am idly by justice. approved miscarriage and For have sat support only judg- statement, of that we need look at the acquittal justice aiding ment of ordered the trial as to the abetting justice counts of the indictment. The trial took prosecutorial “goof.” govern- action because of present any competent ment had failed to evidence indicat- ing Marrapese that was under oath when he testified.4 4 Marrapese being and several others were tried before a federal court Connec charges relating transportation to the interstate ticut on of 30 automatic rifles that Island, Westerly, armory. government’s had been stolen from a Rhode Part of the Marrapese tape against recording case was a of a conversation between him and an apparently informant had been in contact with the Rhode Island State Police. who prior per The informant had died trial. When was tried on the counts, jury government point perjury maintained that the whole of the was to evidentiary impact tape recording. neutralize However, when the trial considered justice count, he said a new trial on the motion for conspiracy was a the client’s credibility question “[i]t *7 that evaluation aside.” reviewing not for this court to set it would evidence, out that sup- the the trial pointed justice idea to that it was these conclusions: respondent’s (1) port the that respondent have testify; developed Marrapese (2) that a rehearsal the electronic and tape; (3) plan explain before Mar- took of the false testimony place evening that the The trial also remarked jury testified. justice rapese from failure to could have drawn an inference respondent’s had testified was his law who Marrapese produce partner, the rehearsal. present during sentence, did allude

At the the trial justice imposition or who knows sus- to the faced lawyer knotty problem to commit that his client has or is about perjury. pects “were that the However, the trial went on to say jury justice that was not the basis upon well cautioned that pretty The transcript which were to find or innocence.” they guilt reminded the after the trial had jury indicates that justice know Marra- that he did not that had claimed himself, that he then emphasized pese going perjure if were con- be in order only they verdict would guilty action of his vinced that took “some affirmative succeed,” that he “shared own to make that crime designed he that “knowingly the criminal Marrapese,” purposes the in- in the unlawful with and plan willingly participated of the con- tent to advance or further some or purpose object spiracy.” ver- had if the trial believed jury’s

Certainly, justice unwarranted, action. dict he could have taken appropriate which, a vehicle I do not believe his remarks should serve as close to when comes employed by majority, perilously After the has returned verdict. jury’s impeaching this court verdict and begin, guilty disciplinary proceedings to reassess verdict and attempt should not behind the go evidence. practice 2-year suspension from the I match

When evidence, willingness manufacture respondent’s law vindicate or will either that this sanction I do believe judicial bar or our public’s preserve confidence of an offense that system. convicted stands system. judicial very integrity This impugns of our lawyers, litigants, and have system witnesses assumes —goal of truth. The the ascertainment but one common of conduct that is a manifestation conviction is honesty integrity contrary high to the standards attorney-at-law. expected of an which are demanded respondent became a indicate that The clerk’s records day 10, 1952. On that member of our bar on October *8 parts pertinent reads: took an oath which its solemnly the office of swear, “I that in the exerciseof attorney falsehood, counselor, I nor will do no * ** any respects being done; in all consent to I will myself an of this demean as and counselor may prac- court and of all other which I courts before fidelity uprightly according law, tice my well to the court as to client.” published, that, I feel once order will look upon attorneys’ just oath as so much rhetoric. “utterly reprehensible” me,

To breach is accordingly.” Thus, and should be “treated I would and do proper remedy, vote to disbar. Disbarment is the and other hesitancy employing courts have shown no this sanction presented in circumstances such as those that are to us. In re supra; Attorney supra; Allen, Green, v. Grievance Comm’n (1975); Mitchell, 410, In re 48 A.D.2d 370 N.Y.S.2d 99 (1967); Kerr, Matter 86 Wash. 2d 548 P.2d 880 In re Caffrey, (1967); 71 Wash. 2d 429 P.2d 880 see also In Foster, re 286 A.2d 508 N.J. reasons,

For these I dissent.