*1 Disciplinary Involving In the Matter BUCKALEW, Respondent.
Robert J. S-1077.
No.
Supreme of Alaska. Court
Dec. Opinion
Rehearing Part and Granted 27, 1987. Feb.
Amended
Buckalew did not inform Whittier Fuel of judgment dismissing its action. In- stead, he told his client City that the had $250,000, offered to settle the case for with M. Feldman and Marcia Vander- Jeffrey $50,000 payment 18, an initial of by August Feldman, cook, Anchorage, for & Gilmore 1984, monthly payments $5,000 and respondent. accepted thereafter. Whittier Fuel this fic- Ass’n, Goor, Bar Van Alaska J. Stephen tional “offer.” Buckalew a then fabricated Alaska Anchorage, for Bar Assn. document, forging sig- false settlement attorney superior natures of another a C.J., RABINOWITZ, Before judge, “agree- court and sent the sham MATTHEWS, BURKE, COMPTON ment” to Whittier Fuel. MOORE, JJ. 20, 1984, 17, August Between and June BURKE, 1985, Justice. made pay- Buckalew “settlement $95,000. approximately ments” of Whittier Buckalew, respondent Robert J. $70,000; $25,000 Fuel received the other proceeding, and the Alaska Bar Associ- firm, law went to Buckalew’s which was Discipline (Discipline Coun- ation’s Counsel representing contingent Whittier Fuel on a sel) stipulation discipline entered into a “payments,” fee To make basis. these The of Gover- by consent. Bar’s Board $67,000 Buckalew embezzled a total nors, sitting as its Board Disciplinary segregated from two accounts. trust (Board), accepted stipulation and rec- These accounts had been established adopt that this it. Were ommended court represented bankruptcy cases in which he a so, suspended do Buckalew we to would be approximate- Buckalew also trustee. used years. from the law for five $28,000 ly of his own money. reject now recommenda- We Board’s appeared Buckalew’s scheme to suc- be tion. partner cessful until his law discovered dis- AND BELOW I. FACTS PROCEEDINGS crepancies the firm’s trust account partner inquired The these records. about 1983, represented In Buckalew Whittier discrepancies and Buckalew confessed Corporation damage Marine in a Fuel and him what he had done. After discussions City action of Whittier. counsel, report Buckalew with decided year, City of that moved for March attorney then his misconduct. Buckalew’s summary judgment. Buckalew failed a full disclosure of his client’s deeds made city’s May oppose the motion and on Association, Alaska Bar state and 23, 1983, granted. May motion On authorities,1 the federal law enforcement learned of the court’s action court, bankruptcy and each of Buckalew’s stay entry filed a motion to of a final interests were affected.2 clients whose Later, 29, 1983, on he judgment. June judgment 1985, for summary filed a cross-motion July we ordered interim On supporting brief of Whitti- suspension pursuant and a on behalf of Buckalew to Bar efforts, 26(d).3 29,1985, following Despite superi- August er Fuel. On court, judg- hearing on June final a the Board of Governors of entered before Association, City. Bar Buckalew and ment for the the Alaska disclosure, Following pled guilty law firm later federal court to 1.Buckalew felony property a accounts from full restitution the trust embezzlement made The had funds. Bucka- trustee in violation 18 U.S.C. embezzled five-year cooperated investigations imposed fully United States District Court also lew has placed on sentence. Buckalew was the Alaska Association and Bar conducted seeking probation conditioned on his authorities. law enforcement counseling completing any remain- health ing 26(d) provides: Bar Rule 3. Alaska pay a restitution. He was also ordered to imposed by suspension will "special $50. Buckalew was not Interim assessment” showing by Discipline prosecuted by Counsel the State Court on of Alaska. requirements stipula- Discipline Counsel entered into a Alaska Bar Rule 29(b).5 pursuant consent stipulation, ap- tion for The after being 22(h).4 stipulation Board, provided Bar Rule proved by the was filed with this violated the Buckalew’s conduct attor- court. neys’ Responsibility Code of Professional attorney (requiring pre- DR 9-102 an funds), identity serve the of client’s DR *3 reviewing stipulation, After the en- we 1-102(A)(3) an (prohibiting attorney from sponte, requiring order, sua tered an Buck- engaging in illegal involving conduct moral why alew to show cause he should not 1-102(A)(4) turpitude), (prohibiting DR an suspended. disbarred rather than Both attorney engaging from conduct involv- Discipline Buckalew and Counsel filed fraud, ing dishonesty, misrepre- deceit or urging “mitigat- briefs that because of the 1-102(A)(6) sentation), (prohibiting and DR present factors”6 this case engaging in attorney any an stipulation accept should the and not order adversely conduct that reflects on his fit- Discipline Buckalew disbarred. Counsel practice law). stipulation ness to The fur- additionally urged that in the event we provided ther that should be sus- stipulation, decline accept to the the matter
pended peri- from the of law for a Hearing be referred to a od Committee years, of five with reinstatement condi- 22(h)(2). accordance Bar Rule upon compliance tioned with with by attorney Committee, conduct an that Hearing constitutes a sub- the any, if irreparable stantial threat appointed harm to petition. his or Hearing to hear the If no prospective her clients or appointed, clients or where Committee has been the Director showing attorney’s there is a that the appoint conduct will one accordance with Section causing great public by (f) harm to the a con- of this Rule. tinuing course of misconduct. stipulation, 5. At the time of attorney the an who 22(h) provides: 4.Alaska Bar Rule had been for more than six months was entitled upon to automatic reinstatement Respondent may tender a conditional con- filing petition, the of a verified unless a motion specific discipline sent to a contained in Rule deny by discipline reinstatement was filed 16. This conditional consent will be sub- 29(c). counsel. Former Alaska Bar Rule A Discipline mitted to Counsel for his or her hand, attorney, disbarred on the other had Counsel, approval. by accepted Discipline If satisfy being certain criteria before (s)he readmitted will refer the conditional admission to of law. See Former Alaska Bar approval rejection the Board for its requested discipline. 29(b)(1). stipulation, Rule Since Rule has been so amended that the more onerous consenting Respondent The present will requirements apply reinstatement now all stating (s)he the Board an affidavit de- attorneys who been suspend- disbarred or specific sires to consent to the year. ed for more than one Alaska Bar Rule 29(c). Thus, stipulation (1) essentially mandat- freely his or her consent is and volun- comply ed that tarily given with what subject are now any and is not requirements duress; current coercion or (2) (s)he charges admits to the stated in the grievance. "mitigating 6. The stipula- factors” noted in the Acceptance (1) by of the conditional consent tion were that Buckalew was afflicted with subject the Board approval problems will be to Court during period emotional specific discipline imposed to be diagnosed suffering includes misconduct been and has discipline provided 16(a)(1), (2), disorder, (3) in Rule dysthymic from chronic recurrent ma- (4). Any rejected jor melancholia, depression conditional admission de- alcohol (in remission), pendence Board or the Court will be dependence (2) withdrawn caffeine Discipline proceed disorder; Counsel will personality under mixed no has (e) Any misconduct; (3) Section prior this Rule. admission made record of made full dis- by Respondent reject- in a wrongdoing conditional consent closure of his and his law firm has restitution; ed (4) the Court Board or cannot be fully cooperated used made full has Respondent any subsequent with the Bar Association and law enforcement proceeding. recognizes depth authorities and of his rejects remorseful; If (5) the Court Board wrongdoing or the a condi- and is did not use consent, tional the matter will be personal remanded to funds embezzled for use. 1975)).9 approach We followed this AN APPROPRIATE OF be- II. SELECTION SANCTION comprehensive cause no standards guidelines help ap- existed to us determine to im- whether must now determine We propriate however, Id. sanctions. Today, recommended sanction.7 Essen- pose the guidelines such provided by are the Ameri- whether to sus- tially, we must ascertain can Bar recently adopted Association’s pend years, Buckalew for five as recom- Imposing Standards for Lawyer Sanctions Board, Disciplinary mended (ABA Standards).10 this sanction is too lenient.8 Appropriate A. The ABA De- compre- Standards set forth for termining Sanctions system hensive proper sanction They misconduct. are past, In the ap we have determined the designed promote: propriate sanction for misconduct (1) basis, case-by-case grounded on a upon a consideration of all factors relevant imposing “balanced consideration of of sanc- relevant level [all] *4 case;11 tion in an individual Minor, In re 781, factors.” 658 P.2d 784 (Alaska 1983) (quoting Spindell v. (2) State appropriate consideration of the California, Bar 253, weight 13 of such light Cal.3d 118 Cal. factors in of the 480, Rptr. 486, 168, (Cal. goals stated lawyer discipline;12 530 P.2d 174 duty discipline 7. It is our lawyers type discipline imposed who in- mend the to be in dulge practices in high inconsistent with the any particular case. imposed upon ethical legal profes- standards the Imposing Lawyer 10. ABA Preston, Standards for 1, Sanc- sion in this state. In re 616 P.2d 4-5 (1986) (Alaska 1980); reprinted tions Lawyer’s in 9(a), (c) see also ABA/BNA Alaska Bar R. & 16(a). Conduct, In Manual on Professional the 01:801— sanction imposed, (1986). to be accept adopted we need 01:851 not These standards were the Board’s may recommendation but dependent policy February exercise official They our own in- 1986. are Minor, judgment. 781, In re study 658 P.2d the result of an exhaustive done the (Alaska 1983); Simpson, In re 645 P.2d ABAJoint Committee on Professional Standards (Alaska 1982); Preston, (Sanctions Committee). at 6. The Sanctions Commit- reported lawyer tee discipline examined all necessarily per- 8. Disbarment in Alaska is not June, pub- cases from 1980 to 1984 and all the 29(b)(5) manent. Alaska Bar Rule allows a eight representative jurisdictions lished cases in lawyer apply who has been disbarred to for past decade. In each case data was years reinstatement five from the effective date offense, concerning type collected the the of the disbarment. whether Buckalew is imposed, policy sanction considerations identi- disbarred, years puni- for five or the fied, any mitigating aggravating and circum- may tive effect be the same. Standards, Preface, stances noted. ABA discussion, Minor, we stated without 9. at 01:803. ABA/BNA considered are to be “relevant factors” the circumstances, mitigating there are whether Standards, § 11. ABA 3.0 sets forth the factors to efforts, lawyer any, has made to the what imposing be considered a court sanctions. lawyer’s prior problem, remedy and the the violated; (b) "(a) They duty the law- are: We also P.2d at 784. disciplinary record. 658 state; (c) yer’s poten- the actual or include factors that additional noted (d) tial caused ... and the existence offense, circumstances seriousness aggravating ABA Stan- factors.” upon repetition, effect deterrent avoidance others, dards, 3.0, at 01:816. legal profes- maintaining respect for the legal sion, who seek that those assurance basic five found Committee 12. The Sanctions unprofessional be insulated will services discipline the courts lawyer purposes of however, not, determine We did Id. conduct. They in order consistently are identified. considered must be all of these factors whether importance: they are all entitled every case or public; protect 1. weight. equal justice; the administration 2. to insure cited, com- past without we have also In the system; legal integrity of the protect the 3. ment, Lawyer Discipline Standards for the ABA conduct; and unethical further 4. to deter (Approved Proceedings, Disability 7-1§ lawyers and the to educate 1979). Stump, 621 P.2d In re See Draft among deterring behavior thereby unethical 1980). (Alaska standard essen- This & 10 nn. 8 profession. members of Standards, all analysis type of tially provides for the same 1.1, commentary, ABA/BNA provide com- employed It does in Minor. omitted). (footnotes at 01:807-08 attempt recom- guidelines prehensive nor imposition of (3) mind, disci- consistence this in now turn to stipulated we the same or similar at bar. sanctions facts of the case plinary among jurisdic- within and offenses B. Application the ABA tions.13 Standards to Buckalew’s Misconduct- 1.3, ABA/BNA at a theoretical They provide also Under
01:809-10. the foregoing methodology, our task in organize this ease is within which framework threefold. The initial step requires analyze factors to be con- answer the the relevant first three “prongs” of the ABA test set cases. Under forth above. sanction sidered Next, we must look to the ABA test, sanctioning four-pronged courts to discern what sanction is recommended following questions: ask the should “type” of misconduct found our (1) duty did vio- What ethical initial inquiry. After determining the rec client, (A public, duty late? to a sanction, ommended we must ascertain legal system, profession?) or the whether any aggravating or mitigating cir (2) lawyer’s mental What was the state? cumstances exist which increasing warrant (Did intentionally, act know- or decreasing the otherwise appropriate ingly, negligently?) See, sanction. ABA Standards, Metho- (3) What was the extent actual or dolgy, ABA/BNA at 01:803-04. potential injury caused (Was there a serious or
misconduct? Violated, Duties Ethical Bucka- injury?) potentially serious State, *5 lew’s Injury Mental and the (4) aggravating Injury Are or miti- there Potential gating circumstances? Because this stipulation case involves a Standards, Framework, ABA Theoretical for discipline by pursuant consent Bar to at ABA/BNA 01:805-06. 22(h),14 three of the “prongs” the first ABA essentially test have been answered The ABA and the Standards meth Thus, for us. extensive analysis is not odology they provide They are sound. required here. clear, guidelines straight-forward combine (the prong Under the first ethical consistency which ensure a level of neces duties violated) stipulated Buckalew con- public legal for that his sary fairness to the and the duct violated four disciplinary rules—DR system flexibility and creativity with the 9-102; 1-102(A)(3); 1-102(A)(4); DR DR disciplined to to justice essential secure 1-102(A)(6). and DR disciplinary These lawyer. Therefore, we will refer to the ABA encompass rules ethical duties Bucka- methodology as an appropri clients,15 lew model owed to ate for public,16 sanctions for legal lawyer system.17 this state. With misconduct in among jurisdictions, diction or 13.Inconsistency cast on of sanctions was one of the doubt major efficiency driving promulgation of and the basic forces behind fairness of all disciplinary systems. ABA the Sanctions Standards. As Commit- Standards, 1-2, tee noted: Preface at at ABA/BNA effective, 01:801. truly For to be clearly developed 14. See sanctions must be based on supra 4. note Inappropriate standards. sanctions can un- Standards, (Failure 15. Pre- 4.1 See ABA goals discipline: dermine the sanc- Candor), (Lack Property); § serve Client’s 4.6 adequately tions which are too lenient fail to & 01:827. 01:817 ABA/BNA public deter misconduct and thus lower confi- profession; dence in the sanctions which are Standards, (Failure 16. See, 5.1 to Main- ' may impair too onerous confidence in the Integrity), 01:829. ABA/BNA tain Personal system lawyers reporting deter ethi- (Abuse See, Legal part lawyers. cal on the violations sanctions, juris- Process), either Inconsistent within a at 01:834. injurious only (the conduct was Such prong The second clients, bankruptcy but state) easy discern. Buckalew’s Buckalew’s also is Fuel, was charged public legal sys- misconduct and the commission Whittier knowing18 Moreover, and intentional.19 When potential for both tem as well. agree- forged “settlement prepared he to cause even more seri- such misconduct ment,” with the conscious Buckalew acted enormous. injury ous into Fuel be- to deceive Whittier objective sum, stipulated facts show that settled. More- lieving case had been its intentionally knowingly vio- in em- over, purpose conscious Buckalew’s clients, lated ethical duties to his accounts was bezzling from his trust funds legal system, and the which caused A wrongdoing. his initial implement potential injury. serious Dr. Deborah prepared by psychiatric report must ascertain the sanction for with Buckalew’s in connection Geeseman type of misconduct. clearly indicates prosecution federal Appropriate 2. The Sanction the nature of was aware of Buckalew’s Misconduct possible conse- and knew the conduct pled guilty fed- Buckalew also quences. ABA Standards applicable four are There included a crime which court eral Bucka- in which misconduct type of its mens rea. See part “knowledge” as recom- standards All four engaged. lew 18 U.S.C. § appropri- as the mend disbarment ate sanction. (the inju- inquiry to the third The answer sanction recommended is the Disbarment caused) likewise potential injury ry or knowing conversion for Buckalew’s Buckalew’s misconduct readily apparent. Bucka- true for same is funds.20 fabricating client defrauding a client included Likewise, dis deceptive conduct.21 intentionally lew’s agreement” and “settlement proper as the is recommended genuine, abuse barment representing the same commission sig- forging judge’s process by sanction legal and for his abuse of client criminal acts22 nature, and the embezzlement federal law. state and funds, legal process.23 in violation as: "the another, "Intent” define *6 18. The ABA Standards benefit or and causes seri- objective purpose accomplish or a injury potential injury conscious ous or serious to a Standards, Definitions, particular result.” client. 11.81.900(a)(1) Accord AS 01:807. at 01:827. ABA Standards § ABA/BNA ABA/BNA provides 5.11 objec- (defining part: criminal intent as a conscious result). particular generally appropriate Disbarment is tive to cause a when: (b) lawyer engages a in ... intentional con- “knowledge” as: The ABA Standards define 19. fraud, deceit, involving dishonesty, duct or at- the nature or awareness of "the conscious misrepresentation seriously adversely re- with- conduct ... tendant circumstances lawyer's practice. flects on the fitness to accomplish objective a ... out a conscious at 01:829. ABA/BNA Definitions, particular result.” 11.81.900(a)(2) AS Accord at 01:807. ABA/BNA as an (knowingly acts defined for criminal 5.11(a) pertinent 22.ABA Standards § states in particular nature a conduct is of awareness that part: exists). particular a circumstance or that generally appropriate Disbarment (a) is when: lawyer engages a in serious criminal con- that, 4.11 states "Disbar- 20. ABA Standards necessary duct a element of which includes generally appropriate ment is when a administra- interference with the intentional knowingly property injury converts and causes fraud, justice misrepresentation, tion of ... potential ato client.” ABA/BNA misappropriation or theft- ... 01:817. at 01:829. provides: ABAStandards 21. when appropriate generally is Disbarment page 23.See note on23 the intent a client lawyer deceives acceptance than justify the Board’s rec- recognize the ABA Standards five-year suspension. of a ommendation gravity of the nature and that misconduct These include factors Buckalew’s emotional requires of Buckalew’s disbar agree. analysis problems Our at the time of does his We ment. misconduct, any prior the absence of here, record end however. Under those same misconduct, full standards, his disclosure of inquire we must now confronted, after wrongdoing being his full any mitigating there are circumstances cooperation remorse, and the fact that a reduced sanction.24 which warrant firm made full law restitution. We agree. cannot Mitigation “magic There no formula” to de 9.32 sets forth the cir- Standards many mitigating termine or how cir which may appropriately cumstances that a court justify the reduction of an cumstances oth mitigation. These consider in factors in- erwise sanction. Each case clude: presents different circumstances record; (a) prior disciplinary of a absence weighed against must be the nature and (b) absence a dishonest selfish mo- gravity of the misconduct. In this tive; case we conclude that (c) problems; personal or emotional present impose factors do not us to allow (d) timely good faith effort to make res- A reduced sanction. number reasons rectify consequences titution or to compel our conclusion. misconduct; First, although Buckalew’s mental (e) full and free to disciplinary disclosure problems and emotional contributed to his cooperative pro- board or attitude toward professional misconduct, ignore we cannot ceedings; paramount the fact our duty, “lies in (f) law; inexperience in the assurance that the pro will be (g) reputation; character performance tected in high (h) physical disability or mental or im- attorney[s]_ duties of primary ... Our pairment; concern must be the fulfillment of proper (i) delay disciplinary proceedings; professional standards, whatever the un- rehabilitation; (]’)interim cause, fortunate emotional or otherwise for (k) imposition penalties of other or sanc- attorney’s failure to do so.” In re tions; Possino, (Cal.1984) (quot- (l) remorse; Bar, Grove State P.2d v. (Cal.1967)). Moreover, simply (m) because prior remoteness of offenses. prior no Buckalew has record of miscon- ABA/BNA at 01:842. *7 duct, inap- this does not make disbarment argues propriate. the gravity The nature of a factors forth stipulation25 set in the more misconduct can make disbarment provides pertinent § ABA Standards in the 24. Because disbarment is most severe sanc- impose, tion Part: we can we need not consider Disbarment is aggravating factors in when a order determine lawyer knowingly violates a court order or Buckalew’s sanction should be in- rule with the intent to a However, obtain benefit for presence the any aggra- creased. the lawyer or another injury and causes serious vating is factors relevant here because of the potentially party, serious to a "neutralizing" they may upon any effect potentially causes serious or serious interfer- mitigating factors. See note 31 & accom- infra legal ence a proceeding. with panying text.
ABA/BNA 01:834. supra 25. See note 6.
55
integrity
misconduct was an ió maintain the
To
where the
bar.
be
proper even
event,
quite out of
apparently
Alaska,
isolated
admitted to the
of law in
Giddens,
166,
re
In
character.
applicant
an
must demonstrate that he or
Likewise, Buckalew’s claim
(Cal.1981).
good
she is “of
moral character.” Alaska
carries
little
“voluntary disclosure”
2(l)(d). If
apply-
Bar Rule
were
only
himself in
weight. Buckalew turned
time,
for admission to the bar at this
by his
misconduct was discovered
after
law
undoubtedly
his misconduct “would
cause
and disclo-
cooperation
While
partner.
reject
application
this court to
out of
encouraged,
strongly
sure are to be
hand,
ground
on the
that he lacks that
miti-
sort deserves full
every act of that
quality.” Stump,
essential
Undoubtedly, the Board’s recommended must “suspension.” than severe connotation rejected. my view there are suffi- And, only concerned with the we were cient, significant mitigating factors to war- Buckalew, “effect” of the sanction on there acceptance rant of the Board’s recom- argument. merit to his would be much five-year mended suspension.1 sanction of a However, the “effect” of disbarment on the During misconduct, period of his disciplined lawyer only, nor the is not the suffering Buckalew was severe emotional important, most factor we must consider. psychological problems. A psychiatric concern, paramount always, Our here as report Geeseman, prepared by Deborah protection public, must be the M.D., in connection with prose- the federal courts, See, legal profession. e.g., and the cution Buckalew concluded that he Preston, also, 6. See suffering from mental illness.2 Dr. 1.1, ABA/BNA at 01:807-08. Geeseman stated that Buckalew “has been chronically depressed to some level over III. CONCLUSION many years. times, depression At has deepened point becoming to the major above, For the reasons stated decline depression, clinical incapacitated which has impose the sanction consented to function, ability professionally both Buckalew and recommended the Disci- personally.” Prior to the events in plinary required Board. As we are to do circumstances, question, periods had under suffered Alaska Bar depression 1979) 22(h), (beginning severe in we remand this case to the suicide, attempted had pro- April Alaska Bar Association for further 1980. He experienced ceedings. Pending proceed- had marital such further difficulties for sev- years ings, July eral Buckalew shall remain was divorced from the law accordance with suggested Dr. Geeseman that Bucka- 26(d). Alaska Bar Rule might lew’s “pro- misconduct be seen as a REMANDED. attempt,” reflecting fessional suicide sub- supra (i) accompanying 28. See delay disciplinary note 5 & text. proceedings; rehabilitation; (j) interim (k) sanctions; imposition penalties of other majority's 1.I concur in the reference remorse; (/) American Bar Association’s Standards for Im- (m) prior remoteness of offenses. Lawyer posing as an Sanctions model for sanctions for diagnosed 2. Dr. Geeseman Buckalew as suffer- misconduct in Alaska. ABA Standard § 9.32 following Psy- from the under the American provides: Diagnostic chiatric Association’s and Statistical mitiga- Factors which be considered in disorder, chronic, dysthymic Manual—III: vere; se- tion. recurrent, major depression, with melan- Mitigating factors include: cholia; remission; dependence, alcohol caf- (a) record; prior disciplinary absence of a continuous; dependence, personali- feine mixed (b) motive; absence of a dishonest or selfish ty disorder. (c) personal problems; or emotional (d) timely good faith effort to make restitu- dependence prob- 3. Buckalew also had alcohol misconduct; rectify consequences tion or to lems, particularly during one-year a severe (e) disciplinary full and free disclosure to “binge" July 1982 to June 1983. Buckalew cooperative proceed- board or attitude toward entered alcohol rehabilitation treatment in June ings; completed pro- 1983. He a six-week treatment (f) law; inexperience in the and, gram although discharged he was from a (g) reputation; character or nonattendance, follow-up program for he has (h) physical disability impair- or mental experienced major problems not since with al- ment; cohol. *9 disbarment, high, protection same anger at the unattainable does since a conscious experienced attorney may apply he had his disbarred expectations that for reinstate- years. point life. Dr. Geeseman elaborated: ment after five If at entire that reinstated, Buckalew wishes to be he will probably that there are It is believed have demonstrate that he has the moral intrapersonal dynamics and very complex qualifications, competency, knowledge dynamics that interpersonal required state, of the behavior, law in this way in a ongoing affected his resumption and that his of the ultimately force him out that would law will integrity not detrimental to the legal practice. a distorted his Bar, standing him way, would then allow or to the adminis- covert expecta- justice, tration of pub- the structure of subversive of the act out living has lic interest.5 tions under which he been hand, giving this is life. On one [sic] I five-year suspension do not view a very compe- he is a appearance providing inadequate this case as deter- attorney, and able to do well. On tent undermining rence or as confidence in the hand, truth is found when the the other legal system. impose The sanction I would throat, out, figura- has cut his own he one; is a severe it has the same functional fight against the tively speaking, to back I recognize effect as disbarment. under, though may he pressures he is “disbarment” has a more severe connota- them, himself, acknowledge feeling “suspension,” certainly than Buck- tion community. family, and the alew’s conduct would deserve Admittedly, problems do not excuse stigma. circumstances behavior; hand, on the other here, however, present imposi- warrant the they indicate motivations other than do the ulti- tion of a sanction that is short of part. pure greed or evil intent on his See I would mate sanction of disbarment. 9.32(b), (c), (h). ABA Standards § adopt the Board’s recommenda- therefore Buckalew be tion that Robert J. following significance are the Also of period years. of five for a first, Buckalew was admitted to factors: and had no record of the Alaska bar prior to the events
professional misconduct 9.32(a). Second, he
in issue. id. See wrongdoing, and his law
fully disclosed his of the funds he em-
firm made restitution discovering his shortly after con-
bezzled 9.32(d), (e). ful-
duct. See id. § enforcement author- ly cooperated with law SIGGELKOW, Appellant, Walter ities, wrong- recognizes depth of his he v. 9.32(e), doing, and is remorseful. See id. § (1). has sentenced Finally, Buckalew been Alaska, Appellee. STATE by the District Court United States No. S-1515. trustee, by a crime of embezzlement Supreme Court of Alaska. proceed- to these same conduct that led ings.4 9, 1987. Jan. us, record I On the before basis five-year suspension am of the view that a fully purposes
will serve proceedings. five-year Here a
suspension provides the 29(c)(1). Bar R. respect note that Bucka- 5. Alaska In this I would also money person- lew did not use for his consumption. al