![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Supreme Court of Alaska
May 20, 2016, Decided
Supreme Court No. S-15450, No. 7106
[*376] BOLGER, Justice.
After remand the Alaska Bar Association Disciplinary Board again recommends disbarring an attorney who testified falsely in private civil litigation and in these disciplinary proceedings. Previously we directed the Board to reconsider sanctions in light of our holding that the attorney violated Alaska Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4 and Alaska Bar Rule 15, but not Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3 and 3.4, because the misconduct did not arise in a representative capacity. After independently reviewing the record, we now conclude that the severity of this misconduct warrants disbarment.
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
We set out the facts and proceedings relevant to this bar matter in In re Ivy.1 Here [*377] we recapitulate those facts most relevant to the imposition of sanctions.
Deborah Ivy and her brother, David Kyzer, were involved for several years in now-settled [**2] litigation over the dissolution and unwinding of business organizations and joint property holdings of Ivy, Kyzer, their two sisters, and others. During that litigation, relations between Kyzer and Ivy grew so acrimonious that a no-contact order was issued in December 2007. This order prohibited in-person or telephone contact between Ivy and Kyzer without an attorney present and prohibited each party from coming within 500 feet of the other's residence. Ivy subsequently testified that Kyzer made improper contact with her on three occasions after this order issued. In response Kyzer filed an ethics grievance with the Alaska Bar Association, claiming that Ivy fabricated these incidents, in violation of the Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct.
Two of the alleged incidents bear on the sanctions inquiry. First, on January 7, 2008, Ivy provided a 30-minute statement to a police officer, claiming that Kyzer had stalked her at a women's clothing store about ten days earlier. Based on Ivy's statement and because Ivy claimed to be in hiding and did not want to come to the courthouse, the officer offered to request a telephonic hearing for a domestic violence restraining order. The day Ivy made [**3] the police report was the same day she was scheduled to give a deposition in the litigation with Kyzer. A few days before, on January 3, the superior court had denied Ivy's motion to stay the deposition, and on January 4 we denied Ivy's emergency motion to stay the superior court order denying her request. Ivy did not appear at the January 7 deposition despite having been ordered to do so. In response to a follow-up order to appear for the deposition, Ivy's attorney reported the alleged stalking incident to the superior court. Ivy ultimately was deposed on March 13. At that deposition, Ivy testified about the alleged stalking incident. She described in great detail her movements among the various racks of clothing and the dressing rooms, Kyzer's allegedly menacing use of his vehicle, and her response. The second incident occurred in July 2010 when Ivy claimed that Kyzer assaulted her in a courtroom and that his actions constituted criminal sexual assault. To support this claim, Ivy filed a Notice of Sexual Assault with the court accompanied by an affidavit describing the alleged incident.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
374 P.3d 374 *; 2016 Alas. LEXIS 68 **; 2016 WL 2941195
In the Disciplinary Matter Involving DEBORAH IVY, Attorney.
Prior History: [**1] Appeal from the Alaska Bar Association Disciplinary Board. ABA File No. 2010D233.
In re Ivy, 350 P.3d 758, 2015 Alas. LEXIS 48 (Alaska, 2015)
misconduct, disbarment, mitigating factors, aggravating factor, sanctions, disciplinary, aggravating, stalking, deposition, attorney's fees, suspension, false testimony, violations, factors, disciplinary proceeding, recommended, ethical, potential injury, discipline, motive, cases, emotional problems, legal system, dishonest, severe, pattern of misconduct, practice of law, circumstances, courtroom, disciplinary process
Legal Ethics, Sanctions, Disciplinary Proceedings, Appeals, Disciplinary Proceedings, Professional Conduct, Illegal Conduct, Criminal Law & Procedure, Obstruction of Administration of Justice, Perjury, Elements, Tribunals, Sanctions, Disbarments, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Allocation