Disciplinary Counsel v. Rik Bachman (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This presentment of Attorney Rik Bachman arises out of his conviction of larceny in the second degree following a plea of nolo contendere.¹  On August 16, 2013 the court, Devlin, J., sentenced Bachman to seven years execution suspended after three years with five years probation.   The hearing on the presentment took place before this court on October 30, 2013.   The court heard argument from counsel.   Bachman did not exercise his right to be heard and there were no witnesses called.   The court was provided with copies of the plea transcript and sentencing transcript;  at the sentencing hearing, Bachman addressed the court, fully accepting responsibility and apologizing for his conduct.   Additionally, Rabbi Israel Stein and Mr. Mark Pantell, Bachman's lifelong friend, spoke on his behalf.

Practice Book Section 2–40(e), with respect to discipline of attorneys convicted of a felony in Connecticut, provides in relevant part as follows:  “At [the presentment] hearing the attorney shall have the right to counsel, to be heard in his or her own defense and to present evidence and witnesses on his or her behalf.   After such hearing, the judge shall enter an order dismissing the matter or imposing discipline upon such attorney in the form of a suspension for a period of time, disbarment or such other discipline as the judge deems appropriate.”

The disciplinary process is neither a civil action whose objective is to provide restitution to a victim nor a criminal action intended to punish the offender;  its objective is to protect the court.  In re Application of Pagano, 207 Conn. 336, 339, 541 A.2d 104 (1988).  “Attorney disciplinary proceedings are for the purpose of preserving the courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to [practice] in them ․ An attorney as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, is continually accountable to it for the manner in which he exercises the privilege which has been accorded him.   His admission is upon the implied condition that his continued enjoyment of the right conferred is dependent upon his remaining a fit and safe person to exercise it, so that when he, by misconduct in any capacity, discloses that he has become or is an unfit or unsafe person to be entrusted with the responsibilities and obligations of an attorney, his right to continue in the enjoyment of his professional privilege may and ought to be declared forfeited ․ Therefore, if a court disciplines an attorney, it does so not to mete out punishment to an offender, but [so] that the administration of justice may be safeguarded and the courts and the public protected from the misconduct or unfitness of those who are licensed to perform the important functions of the legal profession.”  (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Statewide Grievance Committee v. Spirer, 247 Conn. 762, 771–72, 725 A.2d 948 (1999).  Section 2–47(a) of the Practice Book provides, inter alia, that after a hearing on the presentment of an attorney for misconduct “the court shall render a judgment dismissing the complaint or imposing discipline as follows:  reprimand, suspension for a period of time, disbarment or such other discipline as the court deems appropriate.   This may include conditions to be fulfilled before he or she may apply for readmission or reinstatement.”

“Connecticut courts reviewing attorney misconduct have looked to the American Bar Association's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (Standards), which do provide guidance.   The Standards, which were officially promulgated in 1986, have not been officially adopted in Connecticut.   They are, however, used frequently by the Superior Court in evaluating attorney misconduct and in determining discipline ․” Statewide Grievance Committee v. Glass, 46 Conn.App. 472, 481, 699 A.2d 1098 (1997).  “In imposing a sanction after a finding of lawyer misconduct, a court should consider the following factors:  (a) the duty violated;  (b) the lawyer's mental state;  (c) the potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct;  and (d) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors ․ Aggravating factors include:  (a) prior disciplinary offenses;  (b) dishonest or selfish motive;  (c) a pattern of misconduct;  (d) multiple offenses;  (e) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency;  (f) submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive practices during the disciplinary process ․ Mitigating factors include:  (a) absence of a prior disciplinary record;  (b) absence of a dishonest or selfish motive;  (c) personal or emotional problems;  (d) timely good faith effort to make restitution or to rectify consequences of misconduct;  (e) full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings;  (f) inexperience in the practice of law;  (g) character or reputation ․ (j) interim rehabilitation in disciplinary proceedings;  (k) imposition of other penalties or sanctions;  (l) remorse;  [and] (m) remoteness of prior offenses”).  Statewide Grievance Committee v. Shluger, 230 Conn. 668, 673 n.10, 646 A.2d 781 (1994).

The underlying conduct giving rise to the conviction involved Bachman's theft of funds from his elderly aunt who was suffering from dementia.   While no clients funds were involved, and Bachman was not acting as her attorney, the misconduct involved a fiduciary relationship in which Bachman was exercising a power of attorney from his aunt.   Based on information made available to the court at the October 30, 2013 hearing, the court has considered as aggravating factor Bachman's dishonest and selfish motive and the period of time over which the misconduct occurred, and the fiduciary relationship involved.   As mitigating factors, the court has considered, inter alia, the absence of a prior disciplinary record for Bachman, his personal issues including the loss of his job and financial issues, separation, and emotional issues, his character as evidenced by the witnesses at the sentencing hearing, and the fact that he fully accepted responsibility for his conduct and apologized for same.

The court, having considered the above fact that the conduct at issue was not an isolated or impulsive act, but rather a pattern of troubling, dishonest misconduct, orders Bachman suspended for a period of eight years from today's date, with a right to apply for reinstatement pursuant to Practice Book § 2–53.   Prior to applying for reinstatement, Bachman must pass the MPRE, update his attorney registration, and satisfy all outstanding balances to the client security fund for any fees or claims paid on his behalf.

BELLIS, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The initial presentment was filed on June 15, 2012.   On May 30, 2013, this court placed Bachman on interim suspension.   The presentment was amended on August 29, 2013, reflecting the conviction..  FN1. The initial presentment was filed on June 15, 2012.   On May 30, 2013, this court placed Bachman on interim suspension.   The presentment was amended on August 29, 2013, reflecting the conviction.

Bellis, Barbara N., J.