LOHR, Justice.
The Disciplinary Prosecutor filed a formal complaint with the Supreme Court Grievance Committee charging the respondent, Arlan I. Preblud, with violating C.R. C.P. 241.6(1), (3), and (5) as well as DR 1-102(A)(1) and (3)1 based on his conviction in United States District Court of securities fraud, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) (1982). The respondent admitted the facts upon which those charges of professional misconduct were based. He also admitted that his misconduct established the charged violations. A hearing board recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years. A hearing panel agreed with the board’s findings and conclusions, but recommended that the respondent receive a suspension of one year and one day. The Disciplinary Prosecutor excepted to this recommendation, contending that it was unduly lenient. After consideration of the briefs and the record in this matter, we accept the findings and conclusions of the grievance committee. However, we determine that the appropriate discipline for the respondent’s professional misconduct is suspension from the practice of law for a period of three years and assessment of the costs of this grievance proceeding.
I.
Preblud was admitted to the Colorado bar on October 4,1966, and is registered as an attorney on the records of this court. He therefore is subject to the jurisdiction of this court and of the grievance committee in all matters relating to the practice of law. C.R.C.P. 241.1(b), 241.2. The following facts are summarized from the grievance committee’s findings. These findings are based on clear and convincing evidence, including the respondent’s stipulation, as presented to the grievance committee hearing board.
The respondent pleaded guilty and was convicted on May 23, 1987, in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado of one count of securities fraud, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) (1982).2 Securities fraud is a felony and therefore a serious crime as defined in C.R.C.P. 241.16(e). While the criminal charge was pending, the respondent voluntarily surrendered his license to practice law in January of 1986. In June 1986, after the respondent’s conviction, we ordered immediate suspension of his license. The United States District Court assessed a $10,000 fine against the respondent and sentenced him to two years imprisonment. Accordingly, the respondent was incarcerated in Leavenworth Prison from July 21, 1986, to July 31, 1987, and was placed in a halfway house in Denver from August 1, 1987, to December 24, 1987. He has been prohibited from practicing law since he first surrendered his license.
After the respondent was admitted to practice law in Colorado in 1966, he developed a successful high-volume domestic relations practice and conducted that practice with the same firm until 1980. He was experiencing professional “burn-out” and elected to make a fundamental career change. The respondent left the prjvate practice of law to accept an offer to perform personal legal work for four principals of OTCNet, a Denver penny-stock brokerage firm and underwriter. He knew very little about securities law and explained that fact to his employers.
The respondent’s employers devised a scheme to purchase secretly twenty percent of a new public stock offering being underwritten and managed by OTCNet. [824]*824Such a purchase, if undisclosed, constitutes securities fraud under the regulations of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). To implement this scheme, the employers set up a Swiss affiliate and supplied $404,000 to an intermediary to accomplish the stock purchase. The scheme shortly resulted in $1,000,000 in gain for the employers through resale of the stock to other investors at the prevailing market price after the initial public offering had been completed.3
Preblud was involved indirectly in the fraudulent transaction. He was responsible for delivering the $404,000 in cashier’s checks to the intermediary. Although he did not know then that the money would be used for the clandestine purchase of a large portion of one of OTCNet’s new stock issues, he was concerned that the purpose of the investment was tax evasion. Thus, the respondent obtained a memorandum for his employers that concluded that United States income taxes would be due on any gains realized from their investments. After his employers resold the stock, the respondent became aware of the profits realized through the purchase and sale. Although the respondent, because of his limited knowledge of securities law, did not understand the full legal implications of the transactions, he did realize that the employers’ activities were improper. However, the respondent took no steps to determine whether his employers’ conduct violated the criminal laws nor did he confront his employers with his concerns about the scheme. Preblud’s felony conviction for securities fraud resulted from his involvement in these stock transactions.
II.
The hearing board received substantial evidence of the respondent’s remorse over his misconduct. Among the witnesses who testified was the Assistant United States Attorney, William Pharo, who prosecuted the criminal charge against Preblud. Pha-ro testified that the respondent exhibited more remorse over his misconduct than any other defendant Pharo had encountered in his fifteen years of state and federal prose-cutorial experience. Pharo also testified that, in his opinion, the respondent had learned his lesson and would not present a threat of future misconduct. A member of the law firm with whom the respondent had practiced testified to the sincerity, integrity and honesty that the respondent had exhibited in the practice of family law. The hearing board heard further testimony highly favorable to the respondent from two mental health professionals who were friends of the respondent, a Denver police officer who was a long-term friend of the respondent, and the psychiatrist who had been treating the respondent for three months preceding the hearing. Letters from the SEC and the warden of the prison at Leavenworth were also received in evidence. The SEC official attested to the respondent’s willing cooperation with that agency in its investigation, and the warden wrote of the respondent’s exemplary conduct during his confinement in prison. This evidence generally served to corroborate the other evidence of the respondent’s prior good conduct and present sincerity, and the likelihood that he would not engage in similar misconduct in the future. The respondent also testified, acknowledged his misconduct, and attested to his remorse and to his progress in understanding why he had been unable to confront his employers and report the criminal conduct.
Based upon the admissions of the respondent and the evidence presented at the hearing, the hearing board concluded that the respondent had violated C.R.C.P. 241.-6(1), (3), and (5),4 as well as DR 1-102(A)(1) [825]*825and (3).5 The hearing board recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Colorado for two years and that he be assessed the costs of the disciplinary proceedings. In arriving at this recommendation, the board recognized the serious and public nature of the respondent’s misconduct.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
LOHR, Justice.
The Disciplinary Prosecutor filed a formal complaint with the Supreme Court Grievance Committee charging the respondent, Arlan I. Preblud, with violating C.R. C.P. 241.6(1), (3), and (5) as well as DR 1-102(A)(1) and (3)1 based on his conviction in United States District Court of securities fraud, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) (1982). The respondent admitted the facts upon which those charges of professional misconduct were based. He also admitted that his misconduct established the charged violations. A hearing board recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years. A hearing panel agreed with the board’s findings and conclusions, but recommended that the respondent receive a suspension of one year and one day. The Disciplinary Prosecutor excepted to this recommendation, contending that it was unduly lenient. After consideration of the briefs and the record in this matter, we accept the findings and conclusions of the grievance committee. However, we determine that the appropriate discipline for the respondent’s professional misconduct is suspension from the practice of law for a period of three years and assessment of the costs of this grievance proceeding.
I.
Preblud was admitted to the Colorado bar on October 4,1966, and is registered as an attorney on the records of this court. He therefore is subject to the jurisdiction of this court and of the grievance committee in all matters relating to the practice of law. C.R.C.P. 241.1(b), 241.2. The following facts are summarized from the grievance committee’s findings. These findings are based on clear and convincing evidence, including the respondent’s stipulation, as presented to the grievance committee hearing board.
The respondent pleaded guilty and was convicted on May 23, 1987, in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado of one count of securities fraud, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) (1982).2 Securities fraud is a felony and therefore a serious crime as defined in C.R.C.P. 241.16(e). While the criminal charge was pending, the respondent voluntarily surrendered his license to practice law in January of 1986. In June 1986, after the respondent’s conviction, we ordered immediate suspension of his license. The United States District Court assessed a $10,000 fine against the respondent and sentenced him to two years imprisonment. Accordingly, the respondent was incarcerated in Leavenworth Prison from July 21, 1986, to July 31, 1987, and was placed in a halfway house in Denver from August 1, 1987, to December 24, 1987. He has been prohibited from practicing law since he first surrendered his license.
After the respondent was admitted to practice law in Colorado in 1966, he developed a successful high-volume domestic relations practice and conducted that practice with the same firm until 1980. He was experiencing professional “burn-out” and elected to make a fundamental career change. The respondent left the prjvate practice of law to accept an offer to perform personal legal work for four principals of OTCNet, a Denver penny-stock brokerage firm and underwriter. He knew very little about securities law and explained that fact to his employers.
The respondent’s employers devised a scheme to purchase secretly twenty percent of a new public stock offering being underwritten and managed by OTCNet. [824]*824Such a purchase, if undisclosed, constitutes securities fraud under the regulations of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). To implement this scheme, the employers set up a Swiss affiliate and supplied $404,000 to an intermediary to accomplish the stock purchase. The scheme shortly resulted in $1,000,000 in gain for the employers through resale of the stock to other investors at the prevailing market price after the initial public offering had been completed.3
Preblud was involved indirectly in the fraudulent transaction. He was responsible for delivering the $404,000 in cashier’s checks to the intermediary. Although he did not know then that the money would be used for the clandestine purchase of a large portion of one of OTCNet’s new stock issues, he was concerned that the purpose of the investment was tax evasion. Thus, the respondent obtained a memorandum for his employers that concluded that United States income taxes would be due on any gains realized from their investments. After his employers resold the stock, the respondent became aware of the profits realized through the purchase and sale. Although the respondent, because of his limited knowledge of securities law, did not understand the full legal implications of the transactions, he did realize that the employers’ activities were improper. However, the respondent took no steps to determine whether his employers’ conduct violated the criminal laws nor did he confront his employers with his concerns about the scheme. Preblud’s felony conviction for securities fraud resulted from his involvement in these stock transactions.
II.
The hearing board received substantial evidence of the respondent’s remorse over his misconduct. Among the witnesses who testified was the Assistant United States Attorney, William Pharo, who prosecuted the criminal charge against Preblud. Pha-ro testified that the respondent exhibited more remorse over his misconduct than any other defendant Pharo had encountered in his fifteen years of state and federal prose-cutorial experience. Pharo also testified that, in his opinion, the respondent had learned his lesson and would not present a threat of future misconduct. A member of the law firm with whom the respondent had practiced testified to the sincerity, integrity and honesty that the respondent had exhibited in the practice of family law. The hearing board heard further testimony highly favorable to the respondent from two mental health professionals who were friends of the respondent, a Denver police officer who was a long-term friend of the respondent, and the psychiatrist who had been treating the respondent for three months preceding the hearing. Letters from the SEC and the warden of the prison at Leavenworth were also received in evidence. The SEC official attested to the respondent’s willing cooperation with that agency in its investigation, and the warden wrote of the respondent’s exemplary conduct during his confinement in prison. This evidence generally served to corroborate the other evidence of the respondent’s prior good conduct and present sincerity, and the likelihood that he would not engage in similar misconduct in the future. The respondent also testified, acknowledged his misconduct, and attested to his remorse and to his progress in understanding why he had been unable to confront his employers and report the criminal conduct.
Based upon the admissions of the respondent and the evidence presented at the hearing, the hearing board concluded that the respondent had violated C.R.C.P. 241.-6(1), (3), and (5),4 as well as DR 1-102(A)(1) [825]*825and (3).5 The hearing board recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Colorado for two years and that he be assessed the costs of the disciplinary proceedings. In arriving at this recommendation, the board recognized the serious and public nature of the respondent’s misconduct. At the same time, it “was convinced that Respondent did not realize his role in the criminal scheme until he was already enmeshed in it, in a technical area of law that was foreign to him. His greatest lapse was in not disclosing the scheme after becoming aware of it.” The board noted that the American Bar Association’s standards for lawyer discipline provide that absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, disbarment is generally appropriate when “a lawyer engages in serious criminal conduct, a necessary element of which includes intentional interference with the administration of justice, false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud, extortion, misappropriation, or theft.” ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 5.11(a) (1986) [hereinafter “ABA Standards”]. The board concluded that the respondent’s conduct would warrant disbarment in the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
As an aggravating circumstance, the board noted that the respondent had received a letter of admonition in 1974 for implying to the employer of an “adversary client” that imprisonment could result following the hearing of a then-pending contempt motion. The respondent also received a letter of admonition in 1975 for attempting to influence a couple to withdraw a complaint that they had filed with the grievance committee against him. The board concluded, however, that these prior admonitions were not weighty given the remoteness in time of the misconduct and the fact that the misconduct to which they related was not similar to that involved in the present case.
In mitigation, the board found a number of factors that may be considered under the ABA Standards. These factors were (1) absence of a dishonest or selfish motive in that the respondent had not expected or realized personal gain from the illegal conduct, see ABA Standard 9.32(b); (2) personal emotional problems relating to the respondent’s “excessive need” for acceptance by his peers, see ABA Standard 9.32(c); (3) timely, good faith effort by the respondent to rectify the consequences of his misconduct in that he had cooperated with the SEC in its efforts to require his former employers to return their illegal trading profits and had cooperated with the prosecutors in the SEC’s enforcement actions, see ABA Standard 9.32(d); (4) full and free disclosure by the respondent to disciplinary authorities in that he had cooperated fully with the grievance committee, see ABA Standard 9.32(e); (5) inexperience in the practice of law in that although the respondent had extensive experience in domestic relations practice he was a “complete nov[826]*826ice in the field of securities law,” see ABA Standard 9.32(f); (6) good character or reputation, see ABA Standard 9.32(g); (7) delay in disciplinary proceedings in that the respondent had surrendered his license in January of 1986 with the result that he has been unable to practice law since that time, see ABA Standard 9.32(i); (8) interim rehabilitation based upon the evidence of “every witness who had had contact with Respondent since his indictment,” see ABA Standard 9.32(j); (9) imposition of other penalties or sanctions in that the SEC investigations had received wide publicity over a three year period, the respondent’s indictment and sentence had been widely publicized and the respondent had served one year in Leavenworth Prison, see ABA Standard 9.32(k); (10) remorse in that the respondent had “expressed unreserved shame at embarrassing his profession and humiliating his family,” see ABA Standard 9.32(1); and (11) remoteness in time of the respondent’s prior disciplinary offenses, see ABA Standard 9.32(m). Considering these mitigating factors, the board recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years and that he be assessed the costs of the disciplinary proceedings.
The hearing panel by a vote of four to two rejected this recommendation of a two year suspension and instead recommended a suspension of one year and one day. The dissenters favored the hearing board’s recommendation. The majority of the panel believed that a one year and one day suspension was appropriate given the fact that the respondent had in effect been suspended since June 20, 1986, the date of his immediate suspension following his conviction.
III.
Upon consideration of the recommendations of the grievance committee, this court issued a rule to show cause why a three-year suspension should not be imposed for the respondent’s professional misconduct. The parties filed briefs directed to this issue. We now conclude that a suspension for a period of three years is the appropriate discipline to impose. In arriving at this conclusion, we are cognizant of the many mitigating factors found by the hearing board. The evidence amply supports the hearing board’s finding that the respondent is genuinely remorseful, and that it appears very unlikely that he will engage in similar misconduct in the future. Nevertheless, we conclude that great weight must be given to the seriousness of the misconduct itself. See People v. Loseke, 698 P.2d 809, 810 (Colo.1985) (considering nature of misconduct in determining appropriate sanction).
The scheme that the respondent’s employers devised resulted in the fraudulent taking of $1,000,000 from the investing public. The respondent knew that his employers’ investment scheme was wrong, although he did not have the detailed knowledge of securities law necessary to evaluate the criminal consequences of that misconduct. While the justifiable publicity that this incident received operated as a form of punishment to the respondent, it also strongly tended to bring the legal profession into disrepute. We believe that only weighty mitigating factors can justify the imposition of any sanction other than disbarment under these circumstances. See People v. Loseke, 698 P.2d at 810 (respondent’s mitigative efforts insufficient to justify lesser sanction than disbarment); ABA Standard 5.11(a) (disbarment generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in serious criminal conduct).
After considering these factors, we conclude that the respondent should be suspended for a period of three years and be required to pay the costs related to this proceeding. We believe this disciplinary sanction represents a fair accommodation of both the seriousness of the misconduct and the weight of the mitigating factors. Generally, a three-year suspension is deemed appropriate only for lawyers committing crimes other than those listed in ABA Standards 5.11 (serious criminal conduct). People v. McPhee, 728 P.2d 1292, 1294 (Colo.1986). However, even though the respondent has engaged in serious criminal conduct here, we conclude that in [827]*827lieu of disbarment a three-year suspension is appropriate in light of the great weight of the mitigating evidence. See ABA Standards at 6 (“The ultimate sanction imposed will depend on the presence of any aggravating or mitigating factors in [a] particular situation.”), applied, in People v. Grenemyer, 745 P.2d 1027 (Colo.1987) (aggravating factors justify sanction of disbarment). We are impressed with the respondent’s long record of integrity that preceded this incident and with his remorse and determination not to repeat such conduct in the future. Of great importance as well is the fact that the respondent served a year in prison for his criminal behavior.
Accordingly, it is ordered that the respondent, Arlan I. Preblud, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years commencing on the date of the announcement of this opinion. The respondent is ordered to pay costs of $1,242.99 to the Supreme Court Grievance Committee, 600 Seventeenth Street, Suite 500S, Denver, Colorado within sixty days from the date of the announcement of this opinion. The respondent’s reinstatement is conditioned upon compliance with C.R.C.P. 241.-22(b) and full payment of costs.
ERICKSON, J., dissents and YOLLACK, J., joins in the dissent.