OPINION
RABINOWITZ, Chief Justice.
The issue before us concerns determination of the appropriate disciplinary sanction to be imposed against W. Clark Stump.1
In proceedings before the Area Hearing Committee and the Disciplinary Board of the Alaska Bar Association, respondent W. Clark Stump admitted to all of the alleged acts of professional misconduct with which he was charged. More particularly, Stump admitted to violating the following provisions of Disciplinary Rule 1-102 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
(A) A lawyer shall not:
(3) Engage in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude.
(4) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
(5) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.2
The uncontested facts clearly reveal that W. Clark Stump violated each of these sub[264]*264divisions of Disciplinary Rule 1-102.3 More particularly, the record shows that Stump falsified an item of documentary evidence for use on his own behalf in civil litigation pending before the superior court in which he was named as a party defendant. Thereafter, in the course of that litigation, W. Clark Stump, while under oath, on three separate occasions falsely affirmed the authenticity of the document he had fabricated.
The Area Hearing Committee unanimously recommended that respondent W. Clark Stump be suspended from the practice of law in the State of Alaska for. a period of one (1) year.4 The Disciplinary Board of the Alaska Bar Association in turn unanimously recommended that W. Clark Stump be suspended from the practice of law for a period of five years commencing from the date of its recommendation (October 31, 1979).5 The basis for the Disciplinary Board’s recommendation is articulated in the following findings of fact which were formulated by the Disciplinary Board.
12. The falsification of evidence is one of the most serious acts of misconduct that an attorney , can commit because it is an attack on the integrity of the adversary system which depends on full and truthful disclosure of facts to the decision maker.
13. When false evidence is presented not only the judicial system but also the legal profession, the client and the public suffer harm to varying degrees.
14. While respondent apparently believed he did not represent the client and while he was presumably under stress because of his involvement in a hotly contested custody action, nevertheless it is at just such times that the exercise of good judgment on the part of a lawyer is most critical.
15. While the Disciplinary Board recognizes that attorneys are capable of judgmental error, in this case the preparation of the false document while under stress, the later false swearing as to its authenticity is inexcusable.
16. Nevertheless, because Respondent has reimbursed the expenses to the client and has demonstrated deep remorse, the ultimate sanction mandated by the type of conduct herein demonstrated, namely disbarment, should not in this case be exacted.
17. By reason of the foregoing, the Disciplinary Board unanimously finds that the recommendation of the Hearing Committee is inadequate ....
Before this court, respondent has argued that there are two issues to be decided: first, whether the Disciplinary Board was justified in finding the Area Hearing Committee’s recommendation inadequate, and second, whether the recommendation of the Disciplinary Board was “appropriately reflective of the character of the offenses and the attendant circumstances surrounding the offenses admitted by Stump.” As indicated at the outset, each of these issues is subsumed under the more general question of the determination of the appropriate sanction to be imposed.
In arguing against adoption of the Disciplinary Board’s recommendation, and in turn urging the imposition of less than five years’ suspension, respondent contends that the Disciplinary Board failed to properly apply the following principle of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
The severity of judgment against one found guilty of violating a Disciplinary [265]*265Rule should be determined by the character of the offense and the attendant circumstances.6
In regard to his contention that the Board failed to properly weigh the attendant circumstances, respondent advances numerous mitigating factors. Respondent argues that the underlying civil litigation (the Lewis litigation) which led to this disciplinary proceeding was not instituted until four years after he had allegedly engaged in a conspiracy against Lewis; that at the time service of the Lewis complaint was effected upon him, respondent was engaged as counsel in a bitter and hotly contested custody dispute; that at that time respondent was emotionally disturbed over his wife’s health and the demands of his law practice which were magnified by the retirement of his father, who was respondent’s law partner; that respondent, on his own motion, notified Bar Counsel of his violations of the Disciplinary Rules; that the superior court ordered respondent to pay $26,000 to Lewis as costs relating to the former’s falsifications in the Lewis litigation, which sum has been paid by respondent; that respondent has been indicted for violation of AS 11.30.290 (offering false evidence) and does not intend to contest this criminal charge; 7 and that respondent was admitted to the Alaska Bar in 1968 and has had no prior or subsequent record of misconduct.
Concerning the character of the offenses committed by Stump, it is argued that it is of some significance that these acts were carried out by respondent in his private capacity as a private party litigant, rather than in his capacity as a lawyer representing a client. Further, it is argued that the facts disclose that the content of the fabricated document “was essentially and substantially true, and that the falsification was limited to the dated existence of the Note-o-Gram and of its mailing by Stump to Lewis.”8.
Bar Counsel counters, in part, by arguing that the fact that respondent’s misconduct was committed in his private capacity rather than in his capacity as an attorney is “of little merit” because “[i]n point of fact, Respondent was attempting to establish through the falsely dated Note-o-gram and the subsequent corroborating acts, that he had acted competently as an attorney.” Concerning respondent’s truthfulness argument, Bar Counsel points out that this overlooks the fact that, regardless of the truthfulness of the information contained in the document, the Note-o-gram was prepared to indicate that it was sent on a date when it was not.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
OPINION
RABINOWITZ, Chief Justice.
The issue before us concerns determination of the appropriate disciplinary sanction to be imposed against W. Clark Stump.1
In proceedings before the Area Hearing Committee and the Disciplinary Board of the Alaska Bar Association, respondent W. Clark Stump admitted to all of the alleged acts of professional misconduct with which he was charged. More particularly, Stump admitted to violating the following provisions of Disciplinary Rule 1-102 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
(A) A lawyer shall not:
(3) Engage in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude.
(4) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
(5) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.2
The uncontested facts clearly reveal that W. Clark Stump violated each of these sub[264]*264divisions of Disciplinary Rule 1-102.3 More particularly, the record shows that Stump falsified an item of documentary evidence for use on his own behalf in civil litigation pending before the superior court in which he was named as a party defendant. Thereafter, in the course of that litigation, W. Clark Stump, while under oath, on three separate occasions falsely affirmed the authenticity of the document he had fabricated.
The Area Hearing Committee unanimously recommended that respondent W. Clark Stump be suspended from the practice of law in the State of Alaska for. a period of one (1) year.4 The Disciplinary Board of the Alaska Bar Association in turn unanimously recommended that W. Clark Stump be suspended from the practice of law for a period of five years commencing from the date of its recommendation (October 31, 1979).5 The basis for the Disciplinary Board’s recommendation is articulated in the following findings of fact which were formulated by the Disciplinary Board.
12. The falsification of evidence is one of the most serious acts of misconduct that an attorney , can commit because it is an attack on the integrity of the adversary system which depends on full and truthful disclosure of facts to the decision maker.
13. When false evidence is presented not only the judicial system but also the legal profession, the client and the public suffer harm to varying degrees.
14. While respondent apparently believed he did not represent the client and while he was presumably under stress because of his involvement in a hotly contested custody action, nevertheless it is at just such times that the exercise of good judgment on the part of a lawyer is most critical.
15. While the Disciplinary Board recognizes that attorneys are capable of judgmental error, in this case the preparation of the false document while under stress, the later false swearing as to its authenticity is inexcusable.
16. Nevertheless, because Respondent has reimbursed the expenses to the client and has demonstrated deep remorse, the ultimate sanction mandated by the type of conduct herein demonstrated, namely disbarment, should not in this case be exacted.
17. By reason of the foregoing, the Disciplinary Board unanimously finds that the recommendation of the Hearing Committee is inadequate ....
Before this court, respondent has argued that there are two issues to be decided: first, whether the Disciplinary Board was justified in finding the Area Hearing Committee’s recommendation inadequate, and second, whether the recommendation of the Disciplinary Board was “appropriately reflective of the character of the offenses and the attendant circumstances surrounding the offenses admitted by Stump.” As indicated at the outset, each of these issues is subsumed under the more general question of the determination of the appropriate sanction to be imposed.
In arguing against adoption of the Disciplinary Board’s recommendation, and in turn urging the imposition of less than five years’ suspension, respondent contends that the Disciplinary Board failed to properly apply the following principle of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
The severity of judgment against one found guilty of violating a Disciplinary [265]*265Rule should be determined by the character of the offense and the attendant circumstances.6
In regard to his contention that the Board failed to properly weigh the attendant circumstances, respondent advances numerous mitigating factors. Respondent argues that the underlying civil litigation (the Lewis litigation) which led to this disciplinary proceeding was not instituted until four years after he had allegedly engaged in a conspiracy against Lewis; that at the time service of the Lewis complaint was effected upon him, respondent was engaged as counsel in a bitter and hotly contested custody dispute; that at that time respondent was emotionally disturbed over his wife’s health and the demands of his law practice which were magnified by the retirement of his father, who was respondent’s law partner; that respondent, on his own motion, notified Bar Counsel of his violations of the Disciplinary Rules; that the superior court ordered respondent to pay $26,000 to Lewis as costs relating to the former’s falsifications in the Lewis litigation, which sum has been paid by respondent; that respondent has been indicted for violation of AS 11.30.290 (offering false evidence) and does not intend to contest this criminal charge; 7 and that respondent was admitted to the Alaska Bar in 1968 and has had no prior or subsequent record of misconduct.
Concerning the character of the offenses committed by Stump, it is argued that it is of some significance that these acts were carried out by respondent in his private capacity as a private party litigant, rather than in his capacity as a lawyer representing a client. Further, it is argued that the facts disclose that the content of the fabricated document “was essentially and substantially true, and that the falsification was limited to the dated existence of the Note-o-Gram and of its mailing by Stump to Lewis.”8.
Bar Counsel counters, in part, by arguing that the fact that respondent’s misconduct was committed in his private capacity rather than in his capacity as an attorney is “of little merit” because “[i]n point of fact, Respondent was attempting to establish through the falsely dated Note-o-gram and the subsequent corroborating acts, that he had acted competently as an attorney.” Concerning respondent’s truthfulness argument, Bar Counsel points out that this overlooks the fact that, regardless of the truthfulness of the information contained in the document, the Note-o-gram was prepared to indicate that it was sent on a date when it was not. Bar Counsel further argues: “The Note-o-gram itself was a lie; a falsification prepared for the purpose of conclusively establishing a defense to an allegation contained in plaintiff’s complaint.” 9
Regarding the attendant mitigating circumstances, Bar Counsel’s position is that the Disciplinary Board did consider them in fashioning its suspension recommendation, and that respondent’s claimed elements of emotional stress flowed from his initial misconduct and were subsequently exacerbated by respondent’s continued misconduct.
In reaching a decision as to an appropriate disciplinary sanction in this case, we have considered the underlying violations of the Disciplinary Rules involved and the relevant surrounding circumstances.10 The [266]*266facts alluded to previously11 convincingly demonstrate that W. Clark Stump is guilty of serious violations of provisions of the Disciplinary Rules, which violations directly reflect upon his professional ability and competency to serve clients. Further, such conduct on the part of respondent reflects adversely on the legal profession, calls into question the public trust accorded respondent as an officer of the court, and is prejudicial to the administration of justice in the state of Alaska.
Thus, based upon our consideration of the facts pertaining to Stump’s misconduct and all of the relevant surrounding mitigating circumstances, we have concluded that respondent’s conduct warrants imposition of a disciplinary sanction. Concerning the appropriate sanction, we have given serious consideration to the recommendations of the Area Hearing Committee and the Disciplinary Board of the Alaska Bar Association and have determined that protection of the interests of society and the legal profession are best served by adoption of the recommendation of the Disciplinary Board.
It is therefore ordered that Stump’s license to engage in the practice of law in Alaska shall be suspended for five years commencing from October 31, 1979.
BOOCHEVER, J., not participating.
APPENDIX •
DISCIPLINARY BOARD
ALASKA BAR ASSOCIATION
AREA I
In the Disciplinary Matter ) Involving ) ) W. CLARK STUMP, ) No. 78-20 ) Respondent-Attorney. ) ) ._)
SOUTHEASTERN GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This matter was heard before the Area I, First Judicial District Disciplinary Hearing Committee on June 12, 1979, pursuant to a petition for formal hearing filed by Bar counsel, against the Respondent W. Clark Stump.
The Hearing Committee was composed of Gordon Evans (attorney member and chairman), Merle Bottge (lay member), and William Royce (attorney member).
The Petitioner was represented by William W. Garrison. The Respondent was present and represented by Charles L. Cloudy.
The Hearing Committee reviewed the pleadings and exhibits and heard the testimony of W. Clark Stump, together with the comments of counsel for Petitioner and Respondent. Upon such review of the entire written record and analysis of the testimony, the Hearing Committee makes the following Findings of Fact and Proposed Order:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. This Hearing Committee has jurisdiction to make these Findings of Fact and Proposed Order.
2. W. Clark Stump, Respondent, is now and was at all times mentioned herein, an attorney, subject to the disciplinary rules in effect in this State. Mr. Stump was duly admitted by the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska on November 15, 1968. (Transcript, page 11, line 21) He has continuously engaged in the private practice of law since that date in a firm having its office and place of business in Ketchikan, First Judicial District, State of Alaska. (Transcript, page 11, line 21-25)
3. Mr. Stump’s firm was originally composed of his father, Wilford C. Stump, and his uncle, Earnest Bailey, together with Respondent. This firm during the times relevant hereto changed with the retirement of Mr. Bailey in 1969, and the retirement of [267]*267Wilford Stump in 1975. (Transcript, page 11, lines 23-24; page 13, lines 10-11)
4. On November 28, 1975, Civil Action No. 75-758 was filed in Superior Court in Ketchikan. (Exhibit 1) Said complaint, as it related to W. Clark Stump, alleged:
a) That prior to entering into a contract on December 3, 1971, for the purchase of the stock of Marine View Apartment Building, purchaser (the plaintiff) retained and employed defendant W. Clark Stump as his attorney (Exhibit 1, paragraph V).
b) That defendant W. Clark Stump was negligent in the performance of his duties for plaintiff in not opening an escrow account (Exhibit 1, paragraph VIII), not attending to the proration of taxes (Exhibit 1, paragraph X), not dissolving the corporation in a timely fashion (Exhibit 1, paragraph XI), and in not rendering tax advice (Exhibit 1, paragraph XII).
c) That W. Clark Stump participated in a civil conspiracy in concert with the Sellers and the escrow holder. The alleged object of this conspiracy was to deprive the plaintiff of certain tax advantages and thus:
“... render defendant unable to meet his financial obligations as set forth in the Stock Purchase Agreement between the parties, thereby enabling defendant Moran and the other Sellers to declare plaintiff in default and thereby retain the stock and ownership of the corporation and the Marine View Apartment Building, as well as all payments made by plaintiff prior to said default.” (Exhibit 1, paragraph XXVII)
d) Plaintiff demanded judgment against Respondent in excess of Seventy-five Thousand ($75,000.00) Dollars as damages related to increased tax liabilities, plus One Hundred Thousand ($100,-000.00) Dollars for mental anguish and hardship occasioned by the alleged conspiracy (Exhibit 1, paragraph XXVIII)
5. Said complaint was served upon Respondent during a recess in a bitterly ^contested custody trial; Respondent had received no earlier communication from plaintiff regarding the alleged conspiracy' and negligence (Transcript, pages 13,14 and 20). After notifying his insurance carrier of the suit, Respondent in early 1976 manufactured a Note-o-Gram (Exhibit A to the petition) which bore an October 15, 1971, date and which recited that plaintiff was not represented by Respondent, W. Clark Stump (Transcript, page 15, lines 1-7). Said Note-o-Gram was given to Respondent’s counsel and was produced together with other documents to plaintiff in the course of discovery.
6. On July 14, 1976, W. Clark Stump at his deposition testified under oath that said Note-o-Gram was typed and sent by Respondent to plaintiff on or about October 15, 1971. In fact and truth, said Note-o-Gram was not typed until 1976, after the above described litigation had commenced. Count I of the petition alleges, the Respondent admits, and your Hearing Committee finds that such conduct by Respondent is in violation of Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(4).
7. On or about May 12, 1978, Respondent W. Clark Stump signed an affidavit which was filed in the Superior Court in the above described Civil Action, 78-758, in which Respondent states that said Note-o-Gram was sent on or about October 15, 1971. Count II of the petition alleges, the Respondent admits, and your Hearing Committee finds that such conduct by Respondent is in violation of Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(5).
8. On or about June 26, 1978, at a subsequent deposition, Respondent W. Clark Stump, testified under oath that said Note-o-Gram was typed and sent to plaintiff on or about October 15,1971. Count III of the petition alleges, the Respondent admits, and your Hearing Committee finds that such conduct by Respondent is in violation of Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(4).
9. The petition alleges in Count IV, that the conduct of Respondent in Counts I, II and III in the aggregate constitutes a violation of Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(3). Respondent admits this allegation and your Hearing Committee so finds.
[268]*26810. At the hearing, Mr. Garrison moved to amend the petition by striking the word “principal” in paragraph IV of said petition. This motion was unopposed and granted by the Hearing Committee chairman. Thereafter Respondent admitted the modified petition in its entirety. The facts as set out in said petition are conclusively established.
11. At the conclusion of the June 26, 1978, deposition, Respondent W. Clark Stump contacted Charles L. Cloudy and requested that Mr. Cloudy place the facts before the Alaska Bar Association so that the Bar could take appropriate action (Transcript, page 15, lines 18-22). Mr. Cloudy compiled all relevant records, and at Mr. Stump’s request contacted Bar counsel William Garrison, which contact resulted in the institution of these proceedings. (Exhibit A, affidavit of C. L. Cloudy, page 2)
12. Mr. Stump is remorseful regarding his conduct and offers no excuses:
“I am sorry for what I’ve done, I am sorry for the shame that I have brought upon my profession and significantly for the shame that I have brought upon my family, my friends, and those who had confidence in me ... I made a costly mistake and I am ready to pay the penalty for it.” (Transcript, page 16, lines 24 through page 17, line 6). (See also Transcript, page 23, line 10 through page 24, line 2)
Mr. Stump has been indicted and is presently facing charges of passing a forged document, which charges he indicates he will not contest. (Transcript, page 16, lines 21-24)
13. Respondent was required by Superi- or Court Judge Thomas Schulz to pay the sum of Twenty-two Thousand Five Hundred Eighty-two and 43/100ths ($22,582.43) as plaintiff’s costs in developing the disclosure of the facts relating to the Note-o-Gram. (Exhibit D) This sum was increased to Twenty-five Thousand ($25,-000.00) Dollars at the time of settlement of the litigation (Exhibit D). This amount has been paid (Transcript, page 16, lines 11-16). Restitution has been held relevant to the nature and extent of discipline; see In re MacKay, 416 P.2d 823 (Alaska, 1965).
14. The Note-o-Gram is viewed by your Hearing Committee as one transaction having component parts. The initial misconduct and fabricated Note-o-Gram was motivated by Respondent’s desire as a party defendant to document falsely that which he believed to be the fact: namely that he in fact was not representing plaintiff in the sales transaction. The deposition testimony of plaintiff (Exhibit F, page 32, lines 6-15) and the deposition testimony of William Moran (Exhibit E, page 37, lines 5-7) tend to support Respondent’s contention that in fact he did not represent plaintiff. Said fact does not excuse Respondent’s conduct but is relevant on the issue of mitigation (see Mosesian vs. State Bar of California, 8 Cal.3d 60, 103 Cal.Rptr. 915, 500 P.2d 1115).
15. The harm occasioned to date by the misconduct of Respondent has been chiefly born by Respondent himself. Mr. Stump was at the time of the original fabrication, under significant emotional and mental stress. (Transcript, page 13 and 14). This factor while not controlling, is considered relevant by your Hearing Committee (see In re Jones, 96 Cal.Rptr. 448, 487 P.2d 1016). Mr. Stump has apparently practiced responsibly with the exception of the misconduct giving rise to these proceedings. No evidence has been brought to the Bar or to your Hearing Committee of prior or subsequent misconduct.
16. W. Clark Stump makes no request for a particular kind or duration of discipline and indicated that the evidence offered by him was by way of mitigation, and in no fashion was intended to justify or excuse Respondent’s misconduct.
Proposed Order
Your Hearing Committee having examined the testimony and written record before it, has two (2) goals in mind in fashioning a Proposed Order:
1. To protect the public and promote faith and confidence in our profession by strict adherence to our ethical canons, and
2. To tailor a penalty in a fashion which upholds those standards while recognizing [269]*269the ability of an individual attorney to reform and make worthwhile contributions to our society and our profession after admitted transgressions.
The unanimous recommendation of your Hearing Committee is that Respondent W. Clark Stump be suspended from the practice of law in the State of Alaska for a period of one (1) year.
/s/ Gordon Evans Chairman
/s/ Merle Bottge
/s/ William G. Royce