In Disciplinary Matter Involving Chaobal, 498 P.3d 617 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that a thirty-month suspension, with two years and one day to be served, is an appropriate sanction for an attorney’s misconduct when the attorney in separate cases has knowingly failed to follow nine different state ethics rules. (Id. at 629–30). Criminal defendants E.D., R.J., C.M., B.B., J.R., and civil plaintiffs P.B and H.H. all hired the attorney to represent them in their cases in both state and federal courts. (Id. at 619–26). During his representation, the attorney repeatedly failed to meet court deadlines, failed to make or respond to discovery requests, failed to take depositions, and failed to provide for fee arrangements. (Id.). With several clients, the attorney claimed he charged a flat fee but proceeded to request additional funds, sometimes in the middle of the night. (Id.). When several clients terminated services with the attorney, he refused to file the necessary pleadings, promptly turn over the client files, and refund their fees. (Id.). More than one client had to seek fee arbitration to recoup, and with one client the attorney was late paying the arbitration-awarded fee and later claimed a piece of art substituted for the monetary award. (Id. at 620–21). The Court found that the attorney violated the following Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct in at least one of the seven matters: Rule 1.3 (Diligence; R.J, B.B., and H.H.), Rule 1.4(a) (Communication: Case Status; E.D., B.B., J.R., and H.H.), Rule 1.4(c) (Communication: Notification if Lacking Malpractice Insurance; E.D., C.M., B.B., and J.R.), Rule 1.5(a) (Fees: Reasonableness; E.D., P.B., C.M., B.B., and J.R.), Rule 1.5(b) (Fees: Written Agreement if in Excess of $1,000; E.D., C.M., B.B., and J.R.), Rule 1.15(d) (Safekeeping Property: Prompt Fund Delivery; E.D., P.B., B.B., C.M., J.R., and H.H.), Rule 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation; E.D., R.J., B.B., and H.H.), Rule 3.3 (Candor Towards the Tribunal; B.B.), Rule 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters; P.B. and B.B.), as well as several Ethics Opinions. (Id. at 626–28). Per ABA Standards § 3.0, the Court weighed the duty violated, the lawyer’s mental state, the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer’s misconduct, and the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors. (Id. at 628–30). The Court determined suspension for three years and one day was the appropriate discipline for Brown’s failure to meet the deadlines in two matters and failing to advance her clients’ matters without delay. (Id. at 683). The supreme court held that a thirty-month suspension, with two years and one day to be served, is an appropriate sanction for an attorney’s misconduct when the attorney in separate cases has knowingly failed to follow nine different state ethics rules. (Id. at 629–30).