Legal Opinion · Dissent

In the Disciplinary Matter Involving Walton

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided January 3, 1984No. 6289Published

1DissentRabino Witz, Justice

I dissent from the majority’s rejection of Walton’s due process claim as it relates to the applicable burden of proof in bar disciplinary matters. I further dissent from the majority’s affirmance of the Disciplinary Board’s findings of fact regarding Walton’s alleged violation of the various Disciplinary Rules involved in this proceeding. Employing a clear and convincing burden of proof, my review of the record persuades me that the Bar has only demonstrated that Walton’s conduct was both negligent and grossly negligent, thus viola-tive of DR 1-102(A)(5) and (6). I would therefore impose the…

2Cases cited41 opinions

  1. Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. Santosky v. KramerSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  4. Addington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  5. Woodby v. Immigration & Naturalization ServiceSupreme Court of the United States · 1966

36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API