In the Disciplinary Matter Involving Jody Brion

Summary

The Alaska Supreme Court reviewed disciplinary proceedings against attorney Jody Brion for neglect, communication failures, mishandling of client funds, and related professional-conduct violations. The court affirmed a three-year suspension, with two years stayed, and imposed conditions including continuing legal education, financial oversight, an office manager, and a mentoring relationship for reinstatement.

Holdings

1. A three-year suspension from the practice of law, with two years stayed, is an appropriate sanction for Brion's knowing and negligent misconduct, pattern of neglect, resulting or potential client injury, and aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
2. The Disciplinary Board erred to the extent it relied on a symmetry approach equating the base suspension with the period of client neglect, because that approach was ad hoc and unsupported by precedent; however, the error did not require reversal because the Board also relied on its experience, Alaska disciplinary decisions, and the ABA Standards.
3. The Disciplinary Board did not violate due process by asking questions during oral argument where the respondent invited questions and the questions were primarily directed to clarifying matters in the record rather than conducting an evidentiary hearing.
4. Brion received adequate notice of the nature of the Disciplinary Board proceedings and the likelihood that the Board would ask questions concerning the facts, legal issues, sanctions, and aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
5. The Board did not violate due process by receiving procedural information from Bar Counsel or by excusing a Discipline Liaison who had prior involvement in the matter.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the three-year suspension, with two years stayed, was an appropriate sanction under the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions and the circumstances of Brion's misconduct.
2. Whether the Disciplinary Board improperly relied on an unsupported symmetry approach in determining the length of the suspension.
3. Whether the Disciplinary Board hearing violated due process through alleged fact-finding at oral argument, inadequate notice, denial of cross-examination, improper advice from Bar Counsel, removal of a Discipline Liaison, failure to provide the record or prior disciplinary decisions, or improper character attacks.

Disposition

affirmed