ETHICS & PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
Supreme Court of Alaska (2024)
Rosa Gibson
In Disciplinary Matter Involving Crittenden, 554 P.3d 440 (Alaska 2024), the supreme court held that immediate disbarment was the appropriate sanction for a lawyer’s misconduct when the lawyer neglected duties to his clients, failed to safekeep his clients’ funds, and used such funds for his own benefit. (Id. at 440, 454). Crittenden is a personal injury attorney admitted to practice in Alaska and was placed on disability inactive status in 2023. (Id. at 441). In 2023, the Alaska Bar Association (ABA) investigated sixteen complaints against Crittenden from clients, judicial officials, and his account trustees, resulting in thirty-six counts of disciplinary violations. (Id. at 441–52). Clients alleged that Crittenden had not disbursed their settlements promptly, would not communicate with them about their cases, and was dishonest, among other issues (Id. at 441). Counts included multiple instances of failure to communicate under Alaska Rule of Professional Conduct (ARPC) 1.4, failure to safeguard property under ARPC 1.15, neglect under ARPC 1.3, failure to withdraw from the representation under ARPC 1.16, failure to expedite litigation under ARPC 3.2, and failure to respond to a tribunal’s orders under ARPC 3.4(c). (Id. at 441–52). Crittenden and the ABA agreed to discipline by consent. (Id. at 440). The ABA’s Disciplinary Board approved their stipulation and recommended that the supreme court approve the stipulation. (Id.). In the stipulation, the parties reasoned that disbarment was Crittenden’s appropriate sanction, informed by an analysis of the duties he breached, his knowing and intentional mental states, and the harm caused. (Id. at 452–54). Given Crittenden’s repeated misconduct and dishonesty, the parties stipulated that mitigating factors, including Crittenden’s marital problems and severe health conditions at the time of the misconduct, could not reduce his sanction. (Id. at 454–55). Applying its independent judgment to the stipulated sanction, the supreme court held that immediate disbarment was the appropriate sanction for a lawyer’s misconduct when the lawyer neglected duties to his clients, failed to safekeep his clients’ funds, and used such funds for his own benefit. (Id. at 440, 454).
