OPINION
RABINO WITZ, Justice.
This appeal concerns issues of attorney misconduct stemming from Ronald T. West’s actions with regard to a negotiated property loss settlement. A disciplinary action against West was heard by an Area Hearing Panel (“Panel”). The Panel concluded that West violated certain disciplinary rules and recommended a 90-day suspension from practice.
West and the Bar Association appealed to the Disciplinary Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar Association (“Board”). In its decision, the Board found that West’s conduct constituted “serious criminal misconduct” and recommended a two-year suspension. The Board further recommended that West be required to petition for reinstatement, demonstrating his fitness to practice law and passage of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam (MPRE).
West now brings this appeal from the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Board.
I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS.
A. The Release.
Thomas Briggs, an independent truck owner and operator, was involved in an accident on the Dalton Highway. The accident was caused by a washed out approach to a bridge over the Nutilinktak River. Briggs was insured for the truck itself, but not for spare parts, personal effects, or loss of its use. Briggs retained West, on a one-third contingency fee basis plus costs, to represent him in a suit against the State of Alaska to recover damages for these uninsured items.
West filed a complaint against the state and subsequently entered into settlement negotiations with Northern Adjusters, which was acting on the state’s behalf. The state made an offer to settle the suit but this offer was rejected by Briggs. A short time later, on March 7, 1986, Briggs died of a heart attack. His widow, Sandra Briggs, contacted West to inform him of her husband’s death and inquire about the lawsuit’s future. West discussed the claim with her and suggested that they accept the settlement offer, if it was still open. Mrs. Briggs agreed. West then contacted Northern Adjusters to discuss the settlement. An agreement was reached where, for $5,500 consideration, West would dismiss the case with prejudice and release the state from liability.
West then requested that Mrs. Briggs come to his office to sign the contemplated release. West, concerned that the settlement offer would be withdrawn if the state learned of Mr. Briggs’ death, instructed Mrs. Briggs to sign the release form in both her name and her husband’s name.1
[353]*353After Mrs. Briggs signed the release, West notarized it as follows:
On the 26 day of March, 1986, before me personally appeared the above [referring to Thomas and Sandra Briggs] to me known to be the person(s) named herein and who executed the foregoing Release and they acknowledged to me that they voluntarily executed the same.
West then signed and dated the release in his capacity as a notary public.
West exchanged the release for the $5,500 settlement check, which was made out to “Thomas Briggs and Ron West, Attorney.” West subsequently filed in the superior court a stipulation dismissing the case with prejudice. West deposited the check in a trust account, deducted one-third plus costs as his compensation, and wrote a check to the “Estate of Tom Briggs” for the remainder.2
B. Bar Association Proceedings.
The Panel found that West violated the Code of Professional Responsibility: DR 1-102(A)(4), (5), (6), as well as DR 7-102(A)(5). In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel used the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1986) as guidelines. The Panel recommended a 90-day suspension for West.
The Board affirmed the Panel’s findings as to West’s violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Board disapproved of the Panel’s recommended 90-day suspension; it concluded that a two-year suspension was more appropriate. The Board also required that West petition for reinstatement and pass the MPRE.
II. DISCUSSION.
West specifies eleven separate errors.3
A. DR 1-102(A)(4).
West contends that the Panel and Board erred in concluding that his misconduct involved fraud and that he, therefore, violated DR 1-102(A)(4).4
Violations of DR 1-102(A)(4) are restricted to intentional acts of misconduct. In re Simpson, 645 P.2d 1223, 1227 (Alaska 1982), methodology modified by Disci[354]*354plinary Matter Involving Buckalew, 731 P.2d 48 (Alaska 1986). The ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions provide that “intent” encompasses the “conscious objective or purpose to accomplish a particular result.” ABA Model Standards, Lawyer Sanctions, Definitions, ABA/BNA at 01:807 (1986).
The Panel found West in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4). It concluded that West “intentionally notarized a signature that he knew to be false and, in the course of doing so, made statements and representations which he knew were false.” The Panel further concluded that West’s purpose was to cause the state “to enter into settlement at a time when [West] believed that if the facts were known the settlement might not be agreed to.” The Board affirmed the Panel’s conclusion with regard to DR 1-102(A)(4).
West asserts that he did not violate DR 1-102(A)(4) because his actions, while possibly negligent, were not intentional. West further contends that his actions in regard to the release were neither fraudulent nor material since the release was not relied upon by the state in making the settlement.
We reject West’s contentions. It is clear that West violated DR 1 — 102(A)(4). The evidence shows that West intended the consequences of his actions. He intended that the state go through with the settlement even though Mr. Briggs was dead. Thus, we conclude that West engaged in dishonest conduct in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4).5
B. DR 1-102(A)(5).
West further contends that the Panel and Board erred in holding that his actions constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of DR 1-102(A)(5).6 More particularly, West argues that his actions, although admittedly improper, were intended to “facilitate” justice. Additionally, West asserts that justice was not obstructed since the questioned release was never intended to be filed in court.
West’s contentions are devoid of merit. The record clearly reveals that West violated DR 1 — 102(A)(5). West admits that he notarized a statement which he knew to be false. It is beyond dispute that such conduct is in fact prejudicial to the administration of justice.7
C. DR 1-102(A)(6).
West first contends that DR 1-102(A)(6) applies to such “other conduct” as is not proscribed by DR l-102(A)(3)-(5) and is only to be used when the other subsections of DR 1-102 are inapplicable.8
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
OPINION
RABINO WITZ, Justice.
This appeal concerns issues of attorney misconduct stemming from Ronald T. West’s actions with regard to a negotiated property loss settlement. A disciplinary action against West was heard by an Area Hearing Panel (“Panel”). The Panel concluded that West violated certain disciplinary rules and recommended a 90-day suspension from practice.
West and the Bar Association appealed to the Disciplinary Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar Association (“Board”). In its decision, the Board found that West’s conduct constituted “serious criminal misconduct” and recommended a two-year suspension. The Board further recommended that West be required to petition for reinstatement, demonstrating his fitness to practice law and passage of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam (MPRE).
West now brings this appeal from the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Board.
I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS.
A. The Release.
Thomas Briggs, an independent truck owner and operator, was involved in an accident on the Dalton Highway. The accident was caused by a washed out approach to a bridge over the Nutilinktak River. Briggs was insured for the truck itself, but not for spare parts, personal effects, or loss of its use. Briggs retained West, on a one-third contingency fee basis plus costs, to represent him in a suit against the State of Alaska to recover damages for these uninsured items.
West filed a complaint against the state and subsequently entered into settlement negotiations with Northern Adjusters, which was acting on the state’s behalf. The state made an offer to settle the suit but this offer was rejected by Briggs. A short time later, on March 7, 1986, Briggs died of a heart attack. His widow, Sandra Briggs, contacted West to inform him of her husband’s death and inquire about the lawsuit’s future. West discussed the claim with her and suggested that they accept the settlement offer, if it was still open. Mrs. Briggs agreed. West then contacted Northern Adjusters to discuss the settlement. An agreement was reached where, for $5,500 consideration, West would dismiss the case with prejudice and release the state from liability.
West then requested that Mrs. Briggs come to his office to sign the contemplated release. West, concerned that the settlement offer would be withdrawn if the state learned of Mr. Briggs’ death, instructed Mrs. Briggs to sign the release form in both her name and her husband’s name.1
[353]*353After Mrs. Briggs signed the release, West notarized it as follows:
On the 26 day of March, 1986, before me personally appeared the above [referring to Thomas and Sandra Briggs] to me known to be the person(s) named herein and who executed the foregoing Release and they acknowledged to me that they voluntarily executed the same.
West then signed and dated the release in his capacity as a notary public.
West exchanged the release for the $5,500 settlement check, which was made out to “Thomas Briggs and Ron West, Attorney.” West subsequently filed in the superior court a stipulation dismissing the case with prejudice. West deposited the check in a trust account, deducted one-third plus costs as his compensation, and wrote a check to the “Estate of Tom Briggs” for the remainder.2
B. Bar Association Proceedings.
The Panel found that West violated the Code of Professional Responsibility: DR 1-102(A)(4), (5), (6), as well as DR 7-102(A)(5). In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel used the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1986) as guidelines. The Panel recommended a 90-day suspension for West.
The Board affirmed the Panel’s findings as to West’s violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Board disapproved of the Panel’s recommended 90-day suspension; it concluded that a two-year suspension was more appropriate. The Board also required that West petition for reinstatement and pass the MPRE.
II. DISCUSSION.
West specifies eleven separate errors.3
A. DR 1-102(A)(4).
West contends that the Panel and Board erred in concluding that his misconduct involved fraud and that he, therefore, violated DR 1-102(A)(4).4
Violations of DR 1-102(A)(4) are restricted to intentional acts of misconduct. In re Simpson, 645 P.2d 1223, 1227 (Alaska 1982), methodology modified by Disci[354]*354plinary Matter Involving Buckalew, 731 P.2d 48 (Alaska 1986). The ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions provide that “intent” encompasses the “conscious objective or purpose to accomplish a particular result.” ABA Model Standards, Lawyer Sanctions, Definitions, ABA/BNA at 01:807 (1986).
The Panel found West in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4). It concluded that West “intentionally notarized a signature that he knew to be false and, in the course of doing so, made statements and representations which he knew were false.” The Panel further concluded that West’s purpose was to cause the state “to enter into settlement at a time when [West] believed that if the facts were known the settlement might not be agreed to.” The Board affirmed the Panel’s conclusion with regard to DR 1-102(A)(4).
West asserts that he did not violate DR 1-102(A)(4) because his actions, while possibly negligent, were not intentional. West further contends that his actions in regard to the release were neither fraudulent nor material since the release was not relied upon by the state in making the settlement.
We reject West’s contentions. It is clear that West violated DR 1 — 102(A)(4). The evidence shows that West intended the consequences of his actions. He intended that the state go through with the settlement even though Mr. Briggs was dead. Thus, we conclude that West engaged in dishonest conduct in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4).5
B. DR 1-102(A)(5).
West further contends that the Panel and Board erred in holding that his actions constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of DR 1-102(A)(5).6 More particularly, West argues that his actions, although admittedly improper, were intended to “facilitate” justice. Additionally, West asserts that justice was not obstructed since the questioned release was never intended to be filed in court.
West’s contentions are devoid of merit. The record clearly reveals that West violated DR 1 — 102(A)(5). West admits that he notarized a statement which he knew to be false. It is beyond dispute that such conduct is in fact prejudicial to the administration of justice.7
C. DR 1-102(A)(6).
West first contends that DR 1-102(A)(6) applies to such “other conduct” as is not proscribed by DR l-102(A)(3)-(5) and is only to be used when the other subsections of DR 1-102 are inapplicable.8 Alternatively, West asserts that DR 1-102(A)(6) is constitutionally infirm because reasonable attorneys “must guess what conduct it proscribes.”
In our view, West’s first contention has merit. DR 1-102(A)(6) is intended as a “catch-all” for such “other conduct” as is not proscribed by the preceeding provisions of DR 1-102. The Board has presented no argument to support a position that West [355]*355can be found to have violated both DR 1-102(A)(4) & (5), and also DR 1-102(A)(6).
We reject West’s alternative contention that DR 1-102(A)(6) is void for vagueness. Regarding vagueness, we have said that
The Code of Professional Responsibility is necessarily written in broad terms. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to develop standards specifically detailing all forms of attorney misconduct. Although capable of broad interpretation, we believe the meaning of the Disciplinary Rules cited in this case is sufficiently clear to satisfy the requirements of due process.
In re Vollintine, 673 P.2d 755, 758 (Alaska 1983). See also Committee on Professional Ethics v. Durham, 279 N.W.2d 280, 284 (Iowa 1979) (DR 1-102(A)(6) not violative of a “reasonable attorney” due process standard as applied to alleged intimate physical contact by attorney with inmate client during prison visits). West’s conduct involved dishonesty which clearly reflected upon his fitness to practice law. Therefore, we conclude that DR 1-102(A)(6), as applied to West, does not violate due process.9
D. Appropriate Sanctions.
In Buckalew, we stated that “we will refer to the ABA Standards [for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions] and methodology as an appropriate model for determining sanctions for lawyer misconduct in this state,” 731 P.2d at 52. The ABA Standards provide a four-pronged test for determining disciplinary sanctions:
(1) What ethical duty did the lawyer violate? (A duty to a client, the public, the legal system, or the profession?)
(2) What was the lawyer’s mental state? (Did the lawyer act intentionally, knowingly, or negligently?)
(3) What was the extent of the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer’s misconduct? (Was there a serious or potentially serious injury?)
(4) Are there any aggravating or mitigating circumstances?
ABA Standards, Theoretical Framework, ABA/BNA at 01:805-06.
Id. These questions are addressed within a three-step methodology:
Under the foregoing methodology, our task., in this case is threefold. The initial step requires that we answer the first three “prongs” of the ABA test set forth above. Next, we must look to the ABA Standards to discern what sanction is recommended for the “type" of misconduct found in our initial inquiry. After determining the recommended sanction, we must ascertain whether any aggravating or mitigating circumstances exist which warrant increasing or decreasing the otherwise appropriate sanction. See, ABA Standards, Methodolgy [sic], ABA/BNA at 01:803-04.
Id.
(i). Ethical Duties.
As previously discussed, West violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (fraudulent conduct); DR 1-102(A)(5) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice); and DR 7-102(A) (knowingly making a false statement of law or fact while representing a client). Each of these violations constituted breaches by West of ethical duties. See ABA Model Standards, Lawyer Sanctions § 4.6 (Duties Owed to Clients; Lack of Candor); § 5.1 (Duties Owed to Public, Failure to Maintain Personal Integrity); § 6.1 (Duties Owed to the Legal System; False Statements, Fraud and Misrepresentation); § 6.2 (Duties Owed to the Legal System; Abuse of Legal Process). See also ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility EC 1-5 (1980) (“Because of his position in society, even minor violations of law by a lawyer may tend to lessen public confidence in the legal profession. Obedience to law exemplifies respect for law. To law[356]*356yers especially, respect for the law should be more than a platitude.”).
(ii). Mental State.
The second prong of the test requires determining West’s mental state.10 The Panel, with the Board affirming, concluded that West’s misconduct was both knowing and intentional. The Panel based it conclusion on the fact that West intended the state to believe that Mr. Briggs actually signed the release. We affirm. The requisite intent does not have to include malfeasance, only “the conscious objective or purpose to accomplish a particular result.” ABA Model Standards, Definitions, ABA/BNA at 01:807.11
(iii). Injury or Potential Injury.12
The Panel, with the Board affirming, found actual injury to both the public and the legal profession as a result of West’s misconduct. At a minimum, it impairs confidence in attorneys' honesty. Additionally, the Panel, with the Board affirming, found the potential for injury “to the estate, Mrs. Briggs, and the state as settling party, as a result of [West’s] actions in permitting [the] false release to be signed and used in settlement of the Briggs’ lawsuit.”
West asserts that his misconduct caused no actual injury to anyone. West points out that the estate was satisfied with the settlement, and the state considered the settlement amount fair, stating that its position would not have changed had it known of Mr. Briggs’ death. West maintains that to find actual injury here provides no guidance in those situations where actual harm really exists. For essentially the same reasons, West also asserts that there was no potential injury. West suggests that no potential injury exists if later facts show the potential injury to be “highly theoretical.”
Bar counsel supports the Panel’s finding that the public and the legal system suffer whenever a notary public engages in misconduct. Additionally, Bar counsel asserts that West’s conduct “created potential injury and expense to the legal system had the settlement been withdrawn because of the false release and further proceedings ensued over the enforceability of that false release.”
Regarding this point, the Panel concluded
[357]*357... actual injury to both the public and the legal profession occurs whenever an attorney falsifies documents, intentionally misuses his notary seal, or similarly deceives the public or an opposing party. Such actions fall well below the standard of conduct expected of attorneys and, if nothing else, destroys both the public’s and the legal system’s confidence in the honesty of the attorneys with whom they have dealings.
We cannot fault these observations, although we agree with West that little or no actual injury to the estate or the State of Alaska occurred. As West points out, no one has challenged the settlement or suggested that they would have acted in any other manner.
Concerning West’s contentions that there was no potential injury as a consequence of his conduct we take a different view. It was “reasonably foreseeable” that, at the time West notarized the release, harm could come to the Briggs’ estate, the public, the legal system and the legal profession. As Bar counsel points out, had the settlement been withdrawn because of West’s misconduct, the ensuing legal entanglements would have injured the following: the estate, at the least, in not receiving the settlement money; the state, in spending time and resources to assert its position and defend its actions; the legal system, in expending time and resources to settle any dispute arising from the false release; and the public, in ultimately paying for the implications of West’s misconduct.
(iv). Recommended Sanctions in Light of West’s Misconduct.
The Board’s decision found
... that Mr. West’s conduct constituted serious criminal misconduct involving intentional interference with the administration of justice, false swearing and misrepresentation, and this is more appropriately described under paragraphs 5.11 and 5.12 [sanction standards]. The Board disapproves of the committee’s recommended sanction of 90 days suspension as not severe enough for these serious violations. The lack of proof of a selfish motive, the remoteness of prior offenses and the presence of personal and medical problems serve to mitigate the otherwise appropriate sanctions of disbarment, or more lengthy suspension.
The Board, therefore, concludes that the most appropriate sanction is a 2 year suspension for Mr. West, coupled with a requirement that Mr. West as a condition of readmission to the bar be required to petition for reinstatement and demonstrate his fitness to practice, and to take and pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination.13
Sections 5.11 and 5.12 of the ABA Model Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions provide that either disbarment or suspension are appropriate sanctions in the factual context of this case.14 We affirm the Board’s determination that disbarment or suspension are generally appropriate sanctions given the nature of West’s miscon[358]*358duct,15 and specifically reject West’s assertion that Section 5.13 (Reprimand) is applicable in this factual context.
(v). Aggravating or Mitigating Factors.
In addressing the subject of aggravating factors,16 the Panel gave “little weight” to the previous disciplinary actions which involved West, finding that the prior conduct was dissimilar from that involved in the present case. Additionally, the Panel found no selfish or dishonest motive in West’s actions. The Panel did, however, find that West’s length of practice was an aggravating factor in that he must have known of his conduct’s impropriety.
Prior disciplinary offenses are relevant in an aggravating factors analysis. ABA Model Standards, Lawyer Sanctions, § 9.21(a), ABA/BNA at 01:841. West violated the Code of Professional Responsibility on three occasions prior to the present action. On each occasion, West received a private admonition as a sanction. Thus, we find no merit in West’s contention that neither the Panel nor the Board should have considered these prior disciplinary offenses.
A dishonest or selfish motive is also relevant in an aggravating factors analysis. ABA Model Standards, Lawyer Sanctions, § 9.21(b), ABA/BNA at 01:841. West had a one-third contingency fee plus costs arrangement with Briggs. West’s share of the settlement proceeds was $1,650. It is conceivable that the collection of this money provided a motive for West to act as he did.
Finally, an attorney's experience in the practice of law is relevant in an aggravating factors analysis. ABA Model Standards, Lawyer Sanctions, § 9.21(i), ABA/BNA at 01:842. West has been a member of the Alaska Bar Association since 1971. In our view, West’s extensive practice experience provides the only significant aggravating circumstance in this case.17
In regard to mitigating factors, the Panel, in its findings and conclusions regarding sanctions, found the following:18
[359]*359Respondent argues in mitigation that he was suffering from severe personal and emotional problems and that he was suffering from mental disability or impairment at the time of misconduct. The testimony at the sanctions hearing established that, at the time of Respondent’s misconduct, he was involved in contested and very expensive litigation relating to personal business matters and that this litigation threatened to ruin him financially. As a result of the pressures in his personal life, Respondent was suffering from intermittent depression which, ultimately, caused him to seek psychiatric assistance. Respondent is presently under the care and counseling of a psychiatrist. Respondent also called several attorneys as witnesses to his good character and reputation. This testimony was not substantially refuted by the Bar and is accepted as a mitigating factor by the panel.19
In our view, the Panel’s findings concerning mitigating circumstances are fully supported by the record.
III. CONCLUSION.
Our study of the record and the arguments of the parties to this appeal persuades us that the Panel’s recommended sanction should be adopted as the appropriate sanction in this case. In its conclusions regarding sanctions, which we expressly adopt, the Panel stated,
Bar counsel has recommended that Respondent be suspended for a period of time not to exceed two years as a result of his conduct. Conversely, Respondent argues that he should be issued a private reprimand. The panel has concluded that a private reprimand is not sufficient to express the seriousness of Respondent’s conduct. The bar and the public have a right to expect that lawyers will not counsel their clients to affix false signatures to legal documents, misuse their notary power to verify what the attorney knows is a false signature or use documents falsely signed and notarized in settlement of legal disputes:
[W]e cannot ignore the fact that our paramount duty, “lies in the assurance that the public will be protected in the performance of the high duties of ... attorney[s].... Our primary concern must be the fulfillment of proper professional standards, whatever the unfortunate cause, emotional or otherwise for the attorney’s failure to do so.”
Disciplinary Matter Involving Buckalew, 731 P.2d 48, 54 (Alaska 1986) (quoting In re Possino [37 Cal.3d 163, 207 Cal.Rptr. 543, 548], 689 P.2d 115, 120 (Cal.1984)). Respondent’s conduct in this case was less serious than that involved in Buckalew. Respondent was not trying to cover-up the consequences of his own malpractice. Indeed, the irony of this situation is that if Respondent had followed proper procedures and opened an estate so that the proper legal representative could affix his or her signature, the same settlement could probably have been effected just a few weeks later. Nor is Respondent’s conduct as serious as that in Disciplinary Matter Involving Walton, 676 P.2d 1078 (Alaska 1983), in which the false document was created by the attorney and then used affirmatively in court proceedings. On the other hand, Respondent’s conduct is more serious than that in Matter of Conti [75 N.J. 114], 380 A.2d 691 (New Jersey 1977) in which an attorney directed his secretary to sign the clients’ names to deeds after contacting the clients, who had moved away, and being instructed to do whatever was necessary to have the deeds recorded. The discipline in Buckalew was [360]*360disbarment. The discipline in Walton was suspension for 18 months. The discipline in Conti was a reprimand. The seriousness of Respondent’s conduct suggests that a suspension for a period of 90 days is appropriate. The panel recommends a 90 day suspension.20
Ronald T. West is suspended from the practice of law for a period of 90 days.