July 29, 2003


ADM File No.  2002-29


Proposed Michigan Standards for 
Imposing Lawyer Sanctions
____________________________

                         
                        CORRECTED ORDER
                                
                                
     In [Grievance Administrator v Lopatin], 462 Mich 235, 238 n 1 (2000),
the Court adopted the American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer
Sanctions on an interim basis.  At the same time, the Court directed the Attorney
Discipline Board to explore the development of permanent Michigan standards for
imposing lawyer sanctions.  The ADB did as requested and has submitted proposed
standards.  The Court is considering the implementation of a modified version of those
standards.  In some instances, alternative language is presented.  Before determining
whether the proposal should be adopted, changed before adoption, or rejected, this notice
is given to afford interested persons the opportunity to comment on the form or the
merits of the proposal, or to suggest alternatives.  The Court welcomes the views of all. 
In addition, this matter will be considered at a public hearing before the Court makes a
final decision.  The schedules and agendas for public hearings are posted on the Court's
website, www.courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt.

     Publication of this proposal does not mean that the Court will issue an order on
the subject, nor does it imply probable adoption of the proposal in its present form.

     A copy of this order will be given to the secretary of the State Bar and to the State
Court Administrator so that they can make the notifications specified in MCR 1.201.
Comments on these proposals may be sent to the Supreme Court Clerk in writing or
electronically by November 1, 2003, at P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, Ml 48909, or
MSC_clerk@courts.mi.gov. When filing a comment, please refer to ADM File No.
2002-29.  Your comments will be posted along with the comments of others at
www.courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt/resources/administrative/indexes/htm.

     Young, J., states:  

          []      "Following the publication of my statement accompanying
          our order dated, July 15, 2003, the ADB reminded this Court
          that it did not omit to propose standards regarding the subject
          of lawyer incompetence, but rather recommended the
          adoption of provisions that specifically address this troubling
          issue.  Accordingly, I support the inclusion in the corrected
          order of the ADB's proposed standards on incompetence.  I
          hope that consideration of these proposals will raise
          awareness and spark a spirited debate on the question of not
          [whether ]the organized Bar will self-police its
          incompetent members, but of[ how] it should do so."

     Taylor, J., joins the statement of Young, J.

       PROPOSED MICHIGAN STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER
                           SANCTIONS

Preface

These Michigan Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions were adopted by the
Michigan Supreme Court on [date], and are intended for use by the Attorney Discipline
Board and its hearing panels in imposing discipline following a finding or
acknowledgment of professional misconduct.  These standards may be amended or
modified only by the Court.


Definitions: The definitions contained in the Commentary to Rule 1.0 of the
Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC)  and in Michigan Court Rule (MCR)
9.101 are incorporated by reference.

"Intent" is the conscious objective or purpose to accomplish a particular result.

"Negligence" is the failure of a lawyer to exercise the degree of care that a reasonable
lawyer would exercise in the situation.


            A.  PURPOSE AND NATURE OF SANCTIONS

1.1  Purpose of Lawyer Discipline Proceedings:  The purpose of lawyer
discipline proceedings is to protect the public and the administration of justice from
lawyers who have not discharged, will not discharge, or are unlikely to properly
discharge their professional duties to clients, the public, the legal system, and the legal 
profession.

1.2  Public Nature of Lawyer Discipline: Ultimate disposition of lawyer
discipline should be public in cases of disbarment, suspension, and reprimand.  Only in
cases of minor misconduct, when there is little or no injury to a client, the public, the
legal system, or the profession, and when there is little likelihood of repetition by the
lawyer, should private discipline be imposed.

1.3  Purpose of These Standards:  These standards are designed for use in
imposing a sanction or sanctions following the entry of a finding of misconduct pursuant
to MCR 9.115(J)(1). These Standards are designed to promote fairness, predictability,
and continuity in the imposition of sanctions.  They are also designed to provide a focus
for appellate challenges concerning the appropriate level of discipline imposed upon a
lawyer.


      B.  SANCTIONS AND OTHER CONSEQUENCES FOR MISCONDUCT

2.1  Scope: A disciplinary sanction is imposed on a lawyer upon a finding or
acknowledgment that the lawyer has engaged in professional misconduct.

2.2  Disbarment:  Disbarment means revocation of the license to practice law. 
An attorney whose license to practice law has been revoked may petition for
reinstatement under MCR 9.124, but may not do so until at least 5 years have elapsed
since revocation of the license.  Eligibility for reinstatement is determined under MCR
9.123, which requires a disbarred attorney to establish by clear and convincing evidence
the elements of MCR 9.123(B) and requires recertification by the Board of Law
Examiners.

2.3  Suspension: Suspension is the removal of a lawyer from the practice of
law for not less than 30 days.  See MCR 9.106(2).  An attorney suspended for 180 days
or more is not eligible for reinstatement until the attorney has petitioned for reinstatement
under MCR 9.124, has established by clear and convincing evidence the elements of
MCR 9.123(B), and has complied with other applicable provisions of MCR 9.123.

2.4  Interim Suspension:  Interim suspension is the temporary suspension of a
lawyer from the practice of law pending imposition of final discipline. Interim
suspension includes:

     (a)  automatic suspension upon conviction of a felony (MCR 9.120[B]) or,

     (b)  suspension of a lawyer who fails to comply with the lawful order of a
hearing panel, the Board, or the Supreme Court (MCR 9.127[A]).

2.5  Reprimand: Reprimand is a form of public discipline that declares the
conduct of the lawyer improper, but does not limit the lawyer's right to practice.

2.6  Admonition: Admonition, also known as private reprimand, is a form of
nonpublic discipline that declares the conduct of the lawyer improper, but does not limit
the lawyer's right to practice.

2.7  Probation: Probation is a sanction that may be imposed upon an impaired
lawyer as set forth in MCR 9.121(C). 

2.8  Other Sanctions and Remedies: Other sanctions and remedies that may be
imposed include:

     (a)  restitution;

     (b)  transfer of an incompetent or incapacitated attorney to inactive status
(MCR 9.121[A] and [B]); or

     (c)  such conditions relevant to the established misconduct as a hearing panel,
the Board, or the Supreme Court deems consistent with the purposes of lawyer sanctions.

2.9  Reciprocal Discipline:  Reciprocal discipline is the imposition of a
disciplinary sanction on a lawyer who has been disciplined in another jurisdiction.  The
only issues to be addressed in the Michigan proceeding are whether the respondent was
afforded due process of law in the course of the original proceedings and whether
imposition of identical discipline in Michigan would be clearly inappropriate.  MCR
9.104(B).


     C.  FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN IMPOSING SANCTIONS

3.0  Generally:  In imposing a sanction after a finding or acknowledgment of
lawyer misconduct, the Board and hearing panels should consider the following factors:

     (a)  the nature of the misconduct;

     (b)  the lawyer's mental state;

     (c)  the circumstances of the misconduct, including the existence of aggravating
or mitigating factors; and

     (d)  the precedent of the Court and the Board.

3.1  Application of Standards: In considering the foregoing factors and
applying these standards, hearing panels, the Board, and others should:

     (a)  Consult Appendix 1 (Cross-Reference Table:  Michigan Rules of
Professional Conduct and Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions) and locate the rule
violated and a reference to the pertinent standard in Section D;

     (b)  determine which of the factors present in the pertinent standard apply, and
select the appropriate recommended sanction;

     (c)  consider whether the recommendation adequately addresses the nature or
effects of the misconduct, and articulate any basis for selecting an alternative sanction as
a baseline;

     (d)  refer to the commentary and precedent to refine the recommendation; and

     (e)  consider aggravating and mitigating factors (see Section E).


                 D.  RECOMMENDED SANCTIONS

The recommended sanctions in the following standards take into account the factors set
forth in Standard 3.0 and are generally appropriate for the types of misconduct specified,
absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances.  

4.0  Violations of Duties Owed to Clients

4.1  Failure to Preserve Property held in Trust:  The following sanctions are
generally appropriate in cases involving the failure to preserve property held in trust in
violation of MRPC 1.15:

  4.11 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly fails to
preserve property held in trust.

     4.12  Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer fails to hold
property in trust or commingles personal property with property that should have been
held in trust.

  4.13 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer, in an isolated
instance, negligently fails to preserve property held in trust.

4.2  Failure to Preserve the Client's Confidences: The following sanctions
are generally appropriate in cases involving improper revelation of information in
violation of MRPC 1.6 and 1.9(c):

  4.21  Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer, in a scheme to
benefit the lawyer or another, knowingly reveals information protected under MRPC 1.6
or 1.9(c).

     4.22  Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly
reveals information protected under MRPC 1.6 or 1.9(c), where the revelation is not part
of a scheme to benefit the lawyer or another.

  4.23  Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer fails to use
reasonable care to prevent employees, associates, and others whose services are utilized
by the lawyer from disclosing or using the confidences or secrets of a client.

4.3  Failure to Avoid Conflicts of Interest:  The following sanctions are
generally appropriate in cases involving conflicts of interest in violation of MRPC 1.7,
1.8, 1.9(a) or (b), 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, 1.13, 5.4(c), or 6.3.

  4.31 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer, without the
informed consent of the client(s):

     (a)  engages in representation of a client knowing that the lawyer's interests are
adverse to the client's in order to obtain a benefit or advantage for the lawyer or another;
or

     (b)  simultaneously represents clients that the lawyer knows have adverse
interests in order to obtain a benefit or advantage for the lawyer or another; or

     (c)  represents a client in a matter substantially related to a matter in which the
interests of a present or former client are materially adverse, and knowingly uses
information relating to the representation of a client in order to obtain a benefit or
advantage for the lawyer or another; or
 
     (d)  engages in a transaction described in MRPC 1.8(a) with a client wherein
the  lawyer deceives the client into believing that the transaction and the terms on which
the lawyer acquires the interest are fair and reasonable to the client, when the lawyer
knows that the transaction and terms are unfair and unreasonable.

  4.32 Suspension is generally appropriate when:

     (a)  a lawyer knows of a conflict of interest and does not seek to obtain consent
from the present or former client after consultation; or

     (b)  a lawyer knowingly violates MRPC 1.8(c)-(j).

  4.33 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in a conflict
of interest in violation of MRPC 1.7, 1.8, or 1.9(a) and (b), but does not knowingly
violate the rule(s).

               
        ALTERNATIVE A TO PROPOSED STANDARDS 4.4 AND 4.5
                                
4.4  Lack of Diligence

     The following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving a failure
to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client:

     4.41 Disbarment is generally appropriate when:

                         (a)  a lawyer abandons the practice of law and causes serious or 
potentially serious injury to a client; or
          
                         (b)  a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and causes
 serious or potentially serious injury to a client; or
          
                         (c)  a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect with respect to client matters
               and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client.

     4.42 Suspension is generally appropriate when:

                         (a)  a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and
 causes injury or potential injury to a client; or

                         (b)  a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect and causes injury or
 potential injury to a client.

     4.43    Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is
negligent and does not act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, and causes
injury or potential injury to a client.

4.5  Lack of Competence

     The following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving failure
to provide competent representation to a client:

     4.51 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer's course of
conduct demonstrates that the lawyer does not understand the most fundamental legal
doctrines or procedures, and the lawyer s conduct causes injury or potential injury to a
client.

     4.52 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly fails to
provide competent representation, and causes injury or potential injury to a client.

     4.53 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer:

      (a)  demonstrates failure to understand relevant legal doctrines or
procedures and causes injury or potential injury to a client; or

      (b)  negligently fails to provide competent representation and causes
 injury or potential injury to a client.

          
[Note that Alternative A, above, is the ADB's original proposal concerning
lawyer incompetence, with changes agreed upon by the Court indicated by
strikeovers (that language will be deleted if the Court decides to enter an amended
                         order).] 

          
      ALTERNATIVE B TO PROPOSED STANDARDS 4.4 AND 4.5    
                         
4.4  Lack of Diligence:  The following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases
involving a failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a
client in violation of MRPC 1.1(a)-(c), 1.2(a) or (b), 1.3, or 1.4:

  4.41 Disbarment is generally appropriate when:

     (a)  a lawyer abandons the practice of law; or

     (b)  a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client; or

     (c)  a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect with respect to client matters.

  4.42 Suspension is generally appropriate when:

     (a)  a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client in a reasonably
diligent and prompt manner; or

     (b)  a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect; or

     (c)  a lawyer handles a matter that the lawyer knows or should know that the
lawyer is not competent to handle.

  4.43  Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent and does
not act with reasonable diligence in representing a client or handles a matter without
preparation adequate under the circumstances.

4.5  Charging Illegal or Clearly Excessive Fees:  The following sanctions are
generally appropriate in cases involving the charging of an illegal or clearly excessive fee
in violation of MRPC 1.5: 

  4.51 Disbarment is not generally appropriate when a lawyer charges or
collects a clearly excessive fee absent the presence of significant factors in aggravation.

  4.52  Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly charges
or collects a clearly excessive fee.

  4.53  Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently charges
or collects a clearly excessive fee.

          
4.6  Lack of Candor: The following sanctions are generally appropriate in
cases where the lawyer engages in fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation directed toward a
client in violation of MCR 9.104(A)(2) or (3) or MRPC 8.4(b).

  4.61  Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer deceives a client to
obtain a benefit or advantage for the lawyer or another.

  4.62  Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer deceives a client,
and the deception reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness to
practice law, but is not done to obtain a benefit or advantage for the lawyer or another.


             ALTERNATIVE A TO PROPOSED STANDARD 4.63   

     4.63  Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently fails to
provide a client with accurate or complete information.


             ALTERNATIVE B TO PROPOSED STANDARD 4.63   

  4.63  Reprimand is generally [not ]appropriate when a lawyer
engages in fraud, deceit or misrepresentation toward a client.

5.0  Violations of Duties Owed to the Public

5.1  Failure to Maintain Personal Integrity: The following sanctions are generally
appropriate in cases involving conduct in violation of MCR 9.104(A)(5) or MRPC
3.5(c), 4.1, 6.5, or 8.4(b).

     5.11  Disbarment is generally appropriate when:

     (a)  a lawyer engages in serious criminal conduct, a necessary element of which
includes:  intentional interference with the administration of justice, false swearing,
intentional misrepresentation, fraud, extortion, misappropriation, or theft; the sale,
distribution or importation of controlled substances;  the intentional killing of another; or
an attempt or conspiracy or solicitation of another to commit any of these offenses; or

     (b)  a lawyer engages in any other conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit,
or misrepresentation that is a seriously adverse reflection on the lawyer s fitness to
practice; or

     (c)  a lawyer knowingly mistreats a person involved in the legal process
because of the person's race, gender, or other protected personal characteristic in order to
gain an advantage in the litigation for the lawyer or another; or

     (d)  a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is discourteous and
disrespectful toward a tribunal in order to gain an advantage in the litigation for the
lawyer or another.

  5.12 Suspension is generally appropriate when: 

     (a)  a lawyer engages in criminal conduct that does not contain the elements
listed in Standard 5.11 but that nevertheless adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to
practice; or

     (b)  a lawyer engages in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation that reflects adversely on the lawyer's fitness to practice; or

     (c)  a lawyer knowingly mistreats a person involved in the legal process
because of the person's race, gender, or other protected personal characteristic without
the purpose of gaining an advantage in the litigation for the lawyer or another; or

     (d)  a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is discourteous and
disrespectful toward a tribunal without the purpose of gaining an advantage in the
litigation for the lawyer or another.


             ALTERNATIVE A TO PROPOSED STANDARD 5.13   

     5.13 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in criminal
conduct that does not contain the elements listed in Standard 5.11.


             ALTERNATIVE B TO PROPOSED STANDARD 5.13   

  5.13  Reprimand is generally appropriate when:

     (a)  a lawyer engages in criminal conduct that does not contain the elements
listed in Standard 5.11 and that reflects adversely on the lawyer's fitness to practice; or

     (b)  a lawyer engages in any conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
knowing misrepresentation and that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice
law to a slight degree; or

     (c)  a  lawyer engages in an isolated instance of simple negligence in dealing
with the property of another entrusted to the lawyer and causes little or no injury or
potential injury.

5.2  Failure to Maintain the Public Trust:  The following sanctions are
generally appropriate in cases involving public officials who engage in conduct that is
prejudicial to the administration of justice or who state or imply an ability to influence
improperly a government agency or official in violation of MCR 9.104(A)(1), MRPC
3.8, 6.4, or 8.4(c) or (d).

  5.21  Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer in an official or
governmental position knowingly misuses the position or either states or implies that the
lawyer may improperly influence another in an official or governmental position to
obtain a benefit or advantage for the lawyer or another.

  5.22  Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer in an official or
governmental position knowingly fails to follow proper procedures or rules, resulting in
prejudice to the administration of justice.

  5.23 Reprimand is generally appropriate when:

     (a)  a lawyer in an official or governmental position negligently fails to follow
proper procedures or rules (with the exception of the duties set forth in MRPC 6.4, 
which cannot be violated by simple negligence), resulting in prejudice to the
administration of justice; or

     (b)  a prosecutor or assistant prosecutor violates the duties set forth in MRPC
3.8(a)-(e) and the violation does not result in prejudice to the administration of
justice.

6.0  Violations of Duties Owed to the Legal System

6.1  False Statements, Fraud, and Misrepresentation to a Tribunal: The
following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving conduct that is
prejudicial to the administration of justice or that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation to a tribunal in violation of MRPC 3.3:

     6.11  Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly makes a
false statement, submits a false document, or improperly fails to disclose a material fact
or adverse controlling authority, known to the lawyer and not disclosed by opposing
counsel, to obtain a benefit or advantage for the lawyer or another.

  6.12  Suspension is generally appropriate when:

     (a)  a lawyer engages in the conduct described in Standard 6.11 but does not do
so to obtain a benefit or advantage for the lawyer or another; or

     (b)  a lawyer comes to know of the falsity of material evidence the lawyer has
offered to a tribunal but fails to take reasonable remedial measures.


             ALTERNATIVE A TO PROPOSED STANDARD 6.13   

  6.13  Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent either in
determining whether statements or documents submitted to a tribunal are false or in
taking remedial action when material information is being withheld.


             ALTERNATIVE B TO PROPOSED STANDARD 6.13   

  6.13 Reprimand is generally [not] appropriate when a lawyer
engages in false statements, fraud, and misrepresentation to a tribunal.

6.2  Abuse of the Legal Process: The following sanctions are generally
appropriate in cases involving failure to expedite litigation or bring a meritorious claim,
or failure to obey any obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except for an open refusal
based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists, in violation of MCR 9.104(A)(1),
MRPC 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.6, 4.4, or 8.4(c).

  6.21  Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly violates
a court order or rule to obtain a benefit or advantage for the lawyer or another, or violates 
MRPC 3.4(a) or (b).

  6.22  Suspension is generally appropriate when:

     (a)  a lawyer knowingly violates a court order or rule without the intent to
obtain a benefit or advantage for the lawyer or another but resulting in prejudice to the
administration of justice; or
     
     (b)  a lawyer knowingly brings or defends a matter without a basis that is not
frivolous; or

     (c)  a lawyer knowingly fails to expedite litigation consistent with the interests
of the client.

  6.23 Reprimand is generally appropriate when:

     (a)  a lawyer violates MRPC 3.4(d)-(f) or 3.6; or

     (b)  a lawyer negligently brings or defends a matter without a basis that is not
frivolous; or

     (c)  a lawyer negligently fails to expedite litigation consistent with the interests
of the client.

6.3  Improper Communications with Individuals In the Legal System:  The
following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving attempts to influence a
judge, juror, prospective juror, or other official by means prohibited by law or in
violation of  MRPC 3.5(a) or (b), 4.2, or 4.3:

  6.31 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer:

     (a)  intentionally tampers with a witness in an attempt to interfere with the
outcome of the legal proceeding; or

     (b)  makes an ex parte communication with a judge or juror in an attempt to
affect the outcome of the proceeding; or

      (c)      improperly communicates with someone in the legal system other than a
witness, judge, or juror in an attempt to influence or affect the outcome of the
proceeding.

  6.32  Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in
communication with an individual in the legal system when the lawyer knows that such
communication is improper.

  6.33  Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent in
determining whether it is proper to engage in communication with an individual in the
legal system.

7.0  Violations of Other Duties Owed as a Professional:  The following
sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving conduct in violation of MRPC
1.14, 1.16, 2.1, 2.3, 5.1 - 5.6, 6.2, 7.1 - 7.5, 8.1, 8.3, or 8.4(e).

  7.1 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in
conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional to obtain a benefit or
advantage for the lawyer or another.

  7.2 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in
conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional but does not do so in order to
obtain a benefit or advantage for the lawyer or another.    

     7.3  Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently engages
in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional.

8.0  Practice of Law in Violation of an Order of Discipline: The following
sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving the practice of law in violation of
an order of discipline.

  8.1  Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer intentionally
practices law in violation of the terms of a disciplinary order.

  8.2 Generally, the same discipline imposed by the original disciplinary order
should be consecutively imposed when a lawyer practices law in violation of the terms of
a disciplinary order, but does not engage in such conduct knowingly.


              ALTERNATIVE A TO PROPOSED STANDARD 8.3   

  8.3 Reprimand is generally[ not ]appropriate when a lawyer practices
law in violation of the terms of a disciplinary order.


              ALTERNATIVE B TO PROPOSED STANDARD 8.3   

  8.3  Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently practices
law in violation of the terms of a disciplinary order.


                  E.  AGGRAVATION AND MITIGATION

9.1  Generally: After misconduct has been established, aggravating and mitigating
circumstances may be considered in deciding what sanction to impose.

9.2  Aggravation

  9.21  Definition: Aggravation or aggravating circumstances are any
considerations or factors that may justify an increase in the degree of discipline to be
imposed.

  9.22  Factors that may be considered in aggravation include:

     (a)  degree of harm to a client, opposing party, the bar, bench, or public;

     (b)  prior disciplinary offenses;

     (c)  dishonest or selfish motive;

     (d)  a pattern of misconduct;

     (e)  multiple offenses;

     (f)  obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by knowingly failing to comply
with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency;

     (g)  submission of false evidence or statements, or other deceptive practices,
during the disciplinary process;

     (h)  refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct;

     (i)  vulnerability of victim;

     (j)  substantial experience in the practice of law;

     (k)  indifference to making restitution; and

     (l)  illegal conduct, including that involving the use of controlled substances.  

9.3  Mitigation

     9.31 Definition: Mitigation or mitigating circumstances are any
considerations or factors that may justify a reduction in the degree of discipline to be
imposed.

  9.32 Factors that may be considered in mitigation include:

     (a)  absence of any degree of harm to a client, opposing party, the bar, bench, or
public;

     (b)  absence of a prior disciplinary record;

     (c)  absence of a dishonest or selfish motive;

     (d)  serious personal or emotional problems that contributed to the misconduct;

     (e)  timely good-faith effort to make restitution or to rectify consequences of
misconduct;

     (f)  full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward
the proceedings;

     (g)  inexperience in the practice of law;

     (h)  character or reputation;

     (i)  physical disability that contributed to the misconduct;

     (j)  mental disability or chemical dependency, including alcoholism or drug
abuse, when:

                         (3)  there is medical evidence that the respondent is affected by a
               chemical dependency or mental disability;

                         (4)  the chemical dependency or mental disability contributed to the
               misconduct;

                         (5)  the respondent's recovery form the chemical dependency or mental
               disability is demonstrated by a meaningful and sustained period of
               successful rehabilitation; and

                         (6)  the recovery arrested the misconduct and recurrence of that
               misconduct is unlikely;

     (k)  delay in disciplinary proceedings;

     (l)  imposition of other penalties or sanctions; and

     (m)   remorse.

9.4  Factors that are Neither Aggravating nor Mitigating: The following
factors should not be considered as either aggravating or mitigating:

     (a)  forced or compelled restitution;

     (b)  agreeing to the client's demand for certain improper behavior or result;

     (c)  withdrawal of complaint against the lawyer;

     (d)  resignation before completion of disciplinary proceedings;

     (e)  complainant's recommendation as to sanction; and

     (f)  failure of injured client to complain.                                

Appendix 1 to Michigan Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions

Cross-Reference Table