Here you go, Jezebelle (and anyone else who might be interested). Based on what we know about the case at this point, you can decide for yourself whether the aggravators outweigh the mitigators.
According to N.C. Bar Rules Subchap. 1B, Section B.0114(w):
If the charges of misconduct are established, the hearing committee will then consider any evidence relevant to the discipline to be imposed, including the record of all previous misconduct for which the defendant has been disciplined in this state or any other jurisdiction and any evidence in aggravation or mitigation of the offense.
(1) The hearing committee may consider aggravating factors in imposing discipline in any disciplinary case, including the following factors:
(A) prior disciplinary offenses;
(B) dishonest or selfish motive;
(C) a pattern of misconduct;
(D) multiple offenses;
(E) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceedings 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;
(G) refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct;
(H) vulnerability of victim;
(I) substantial experience in the practice of law;
(J) indifference to making restitution;
(K) issuance of a letter of warning to the defendant within the three years immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.
(2) The hearing committee may consider mitigating factors in imposing discipline in any disciplinary case, including the following factors:
(A) absence of a prior disciplinary record;
(B) absence of a dishonest or selfish motive;
(C) personal or emotional problems;
(D) timely good faith efforts to make restitution or to rectify consequences of misconduct;
(E) full and free disclosure to the hearing committee or cooperative attitude toward proceedings;
(F) inexperience in the practice of law;
(G) character or reputation;
(H) physical or mental disability or impairment;
(I) delay in disciplinary proceedings through no fault of the defendant attorney;
(J) interim rehabilitation;
(K) imposition of other penalties or sanctions;
(L) remorse;
(M) remoteness of prior offenses.
Aggravating factors, I see: B, C, D, F, G, H, I and possibly K, the question being was Nifong warned by the bar to cease making public statements about the case.
Mitigating factors, I see: A, G, and L, if he pleads it.
Looks like the aggravators outweigh the mitigators.
Thanks for posting the information. :)
Nifong will claim:
Mitigating:
(A) absence of a prior disciplinary record;
(G) character or reputation;
(A) one is true unless the digging into his prior cases quickly lead to new charges in other cases. (G) he will get a bunch of Woody's to say what a great guy he is.
(B) absence of a dishonest or selfish motive;
I know, I know but he is a Dim. He will try it. He will say it was for the children. He will deny the election had anything to do with it. He will claim he believed Mangum.
(C) personal or emotional problems;
(H) physical or mental disability or impairment;
(J) interim rehabilitation;
(L) remorse;
Face it he is a Dim and that is what they do.
(D) timely good faith efforts to make restitution or to rectify consequences of misconduct;
(E) full and free disclosure to the hearing committee or cooperative attitude toward proceedings;
I will claim that he shut up early on in the case and eventually turned of the evidence. He will lie and claim his shutting up had nothing to do with the primary being over. He will claim he has cooperated with the bar. These two claims may well irritate the bar even more but he will make them unless his attorney threatens to quit over this.
(F) inexperience in the practice of law;
He will claim inexperience as DA. As a 20+ year ADA, it won't work but he will claim it.
(K) imposition of other penalties or sanctions;
He will claim that the scorn in the public eye has been great punishment for him. He may also claim this if he is forced to resign as DA before his hearing on these ethics charges.
So overall he will claim the all but (I)and(M)because there has not been much delay and he has no priors as of now.
Sorry about the typos in the Nifong post, but I think you can still understand it.
The NC Bar should find:
Aggrevating circumstances:
(B) dishonest or selfish motive;
Clearly this is true although he will deny this. This was all about an election. This was all about Nifong and had nothing to do with anyone else, INCLUDING THE DEFENDANTS. Nifong did not really care which out of state Duke lacrosse student he charged.
(C) a pattern of misconduct;
(D) multiple offenses;
Clearly the volume of charges in this case and the continuing pattern comes into play. He did not make a single mistake or two. He continuously violated the ethics cannons since this case began.
(E) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceedings 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;
The Bar has charged this. Surely they will find this aggrevating circumstance too.
(G) refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct;
If he follows his pattern this will be the case although he will claim differently as I said under mitigating circumstances.
H) vulnerability of victim;
They should find this. He picked on out of state temporary guest in a state with many many college that rely to some extent on out of state students. He picked on young barely adults who were not very experienced in the ways of the world. He picked on college students who would be suspended while the charges were pending. He spilled over onto 50+ people counting lacrosse player and coaches.
(I) substantial experience in the practice of law;
He has been an attorney and ADA about as long as you can.
(J) indifference to making restitution;
He won't be able to make restitution because of potential civil liability.
So that is all but A nd K since he has no priors right now. So the way I see it is that almost all the aggrevating circumstances are there.