Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Dornay

Washington Supreme Court

Decided June 21, 2007No. Nos. 200,315-0; 200,320-6Published

1Dissent

¶64 (dissenting) — Despite sanctioning attorney Margita Dornay for allegedly making false statements under oath, the majority gives only a scant analysis to whether her statements were actually false. At issue are allegations that Dornay violated RPC 3.3 and 8.4.4 These charges are all predicated on the assumption Dornay lied under oath. However, considering the context of the questions and their ambiguity, one cannot say by a clear preponderance of the evidence Dornay intentionally testified falsely. Like the hearing examiner, we should hold Dornay’s statements were literally true.

Sanders, J.

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Bronston v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Arthur Andersen LLP v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
  3. In Re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against AllottaWashington Supreme Court · 1988
  4. In Re the Discipline of LittleWashington Supreme Court · 1952
  5. United States v. ShottsCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1998

9 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