1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 631, 646 [three instances of misconduct constitute multiple acts of wrongdoing]; (Review Dept. 2005) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 829, 839 In the Matter of Shalant [two counts of misconduct arising from one transaction did not constitute multiple acts of misconduct].) 2. Dishonesty (Std. 1.5(d)) misconduct was followed by dishonesty. On March 8, 2013, a year after he Lazo’s missed the trial date and a month before his discipline trial, Lazo wrote a letter to the Girgis superior court judge in an attempt to justify his conduct. In the letter, he stated: my uncle “After passed [February 18, 2012], because of the circumstances surrounding his death, which involved murder for the inheritance of land, there was no way to get out of the This statement was trip.” false. brother testified at the disciplinary hearing that the family knew in early March Lazo’s 2012, just weeks after his uncle passed and a year before Lazo wrote the letter, that the uncle’s death was from natural causes. dishonesty reflects a of the fundamental rule Lazo’s “disregard of ethics that of common honesty without which the profession is worse than valueless in — — the place it holds in the administration of (1991) 52 v. State Bar justice. [Citation.]” (Borré Cal.3d 1047, 1053.) We assign significant weight to this aggravating factor. 3. Significant Harm (Std. 1.5(f)) failure to appear for trial caused significant harm to the superior court and to the Lazo’s parties. The judge had to reschedule and continue the trial, thereby displacing valuable and scarce judicial resources. And Ayers had to spend additional time preparing for trial a second time. We assign great aggravating weight to this factor. (See (Review In the Matter of Varakin Dept. 1994) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 179, 189 [waste of judicial time and resources constitutes significant harm].) 4. Lack of Insight (Std. 1.5(g))
1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 631, 646 [three instances of misconduct constitute multiple acts of wrongdoing]; In the Matter of Shalant (Review Dept. 2005) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 829, 839 [two counts of misconduct arising from one transaction did not constitute multiple acts of misconduct].) 2. Dishonesty (Std. 1.5(d)) Lazo’s misconduct was followed by dishonesty. On March 8, 2013, a year after he missed the Girgis trial date and a month before his discipline trial, Lazo wrote a letter to the superior court judge in an attempt to justify his conduct. In the letter, he stated: “After my uncle passed [February 18, 2012], because of the circumstances surrounding his death, which involved murder for the inheritance of land, there was no way to get out of the trip.” This statement was false. Lazo’s brother testified at the disciplinary hearing that the family knew in early March 2012, just weeks after his uncle passed and a year before Lazo wrote the letter, that the uncle’s death was from natural causes. Lazo’s dishonesty reflects a “disregard of the fundamental rule of ethics — that of common honesty — without which the profession is worse than valueless in the place it holds in the administration of justice. [Citation.]” (Borré v. State Bar (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1047, 1053.) We assign significant weight to this aggravating factor. 3. Significant Harm (Std. 1.5(f)) Lazo’s failure to appear for trial caused significant harm to the superior court and to the parties. The judge had to reschedule and continue the trial, thereby displacing valuable and scarce judicial resources. And Ayers had to spend additional time preparing for trial a second time. We assign great aggravating weight to this factor. (See In the Matter of Varakin (Review Dept. 1994) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 179, 189 [waste of judicial time and resources constitutes significant harm].) 4. Lack of Insight (Std. 1.5(g))
12-O-13956.docx