Content area
Full Text
INTRODUCTION
The topic of attorney misconduct and how to sanction those found guilty of illegal behavior is at the forefront of the legal ethics world and its constantly changing landscape. According to Model Rule 8.4(b) of the American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct (Model Rules) "[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: commit a criminal act that affects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects."1
In the past few years, states have had to review cases in which attorneys have been convicted of vehicular homicide. These states have been forced to determine whether such a conviction violates their versions of Model Rule 8.4, and if so, what sanction is appropriate. States have imposed varying procedures for making these determinations.2 One rationale for imposing sanctions on attorneys for criminal behavior, such as vehicular homicide, is that "[e]very lawyer admitted to the bar is committed to uphold the honor and dignity of the profession."3 Furthermore, the bar has long felt that "the profession owes a duty to the courts, the public ... to cleanse its ranks of those who show themselves unfit to represent the bar."4
Attorney sanctions, such as those imposed for felony convictions like vehicular homicide, have long incited controversy within the legal profession. What remains constant throughout these debates are the overarching goals of attorney sanctions. The three most commonly cited goals of attorney discipline are: (1) to protect the public; (2) to protect the administration of justice; and (3) to preserve confidence in the legal profession.5
After promulgating the Model Rules in 1983, the ABA also adopted the Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions in 1986. The goal of these standards was to provide jurisdictions with a framework for implementing and enforcing sanctions.6 The ABA wanted to help states enforce their own codes by creating uniform standards to minimize inconsistencies.7 Despite the ABA's attempt to offer a uniform standard for imposing lawyer sanctions, New York and the District of Columbia are among the few jurisdictions that have not adopted these standards, and instead "hold fast to their own, often more traditional, sanctioning procedures."8
This Note will explore the different procedures followed by New York and the District of Columbia in determining sanctions...