When faced with an Ethics Committee Grievance or Complaint, attorneys, for reasons lodged deep in the human psyche, fear the worst. Suspension. Disbarment. Prison. So when they speak to me for the first time, their most pressing question usually is, “What is going to happen to me?” My invariable answer (because I have been a lawyer far too long to give any other) is, “It depends.”

In legal ethics, each case is judged on its own merits, and the quantum of discipline may depend on many factors. For example, it may depend on whether the violation arose within or outside of the practice of law. It may depend on whether there was a crime or other dishonesty involved. It may depend on the disciplinary history of the respondent, whether restitution was made, whether the respondent has cooperated with the investigation, has provided extraordinary service to the community, has been rehabilitated or failed to attend counseling sessions. It can depend on the number and magnitude of the RPC violations, on the quality and quantity of the respondent's letters of character reference, on the attitude of the respondent in answering questions, and on the position taken by other bars to which the respondent belongs.

A respondent's lack of remorse is an aggravating factor, but one's remedial measures may speak for mitigation. A respondent's youth or inexperience may be a mitigating factor, though one's status as a judicial law clerk is an aggravating one. A respondent's pattern of, or repeated, misconduct is an aggravating factor, but exemplary comportment since the violation can mitigate discipline.