"On the other hand, a lawyer who, nursing a grudge of some kind, deliberately assaulted another would manifest character defects calling into question the wisdom of trusting the lawyer with important controversies and confidential information," and thereby be subject to discipline. Id. at 65-9 to 65-10; see also In re Johnson, 106 Ariz. 73, 471 P.2d 269, 271 (1970) ("Isolated, trivial incidents of [assault] not involving a fixed pattern of misbehavior find ample redress in the criminal and civil laws. . . . [Such incidents arise] out of the infirmities of human nature. They are not the appropriate subject matter of a solemn reprimand by this Court."); White, 815 P.2d at 1265 ("For example, a misdemeanor assault arising from a private dispute would not, in and of itself, violate [a disciplinary] rule.").

"The panel believes that the respondent's conduct herein is the type which may find ample redress in the criminal and civil laws and exhibits none of the elements of moral turpitude, arising, rather, from the infirmities of human nature. The panel does not feel that the respondent's conduct herein is the appropriate subject matter of a solemn reprimand by the Supreme Court. (in re Johnson, 106 Ariz. 73, 471 p. 2d 269) [ sic] Accordingly, based upon ABA standard 5.14, the panel unanimously recommends that respondent should be disciplined by formal admonition and should be required to pay the costs herein, as properly certified by the Disciplinary Administrator."

For example, a misdemeanor assault arising from a private dispute would not, in and of itself, violate that rule. See In re Johnson, 106 Ariz. 73, 74, 471 P.2d 269 (1970) (holding that a lawyer who had been charged with assault did not violate the parallel Arizona disciplinary rule; incident was isolated, not involving a fixed pattern of misbehavior, and did not involve moral turpitude). Each case must be decided on its own facts.

Other courts apparently differentiate between crimes related or unrelated to the practice of law and, accordingly, impose different sanctions. See In re Johnson, 106 Ariz. 73, 471 P.2d 269 (1970); In re Rothrock, 16 Cal.2d 449, 106 P.2d 907, 131 A.L.R. 226 (1940). See also Annot., Homicide or Assault as Ground for Disciplinary Measures Against Attorney, 21 A.L.R.3d 887 (1968).

The Supreme Court of Arizona has dismissed disciplinary proceedings against an attorney who struck another man in an altercation. In re Johnson, 106 Ariz. 73, 471 P.2d 269 (1970). That court's reasoning persuades us that no moral turpitude is involved in the instant case.

When disciplinary action against an attorney is recommended by the Disciplinary Board, it is this Court's duty to determine for itself the facts. Matter of Dwight, 117 Ariz. 407, 573 P.2d 481 (1977); In re Johnson, 106 Ariz. 73, 471 P.2d 269 (1970). Since each count of the complaint arises out of different facts, they will be discussed separately.

When disciplinary action is recommended against an attorney, it is this court's duty to make an independent determination of the facts. In re Johnson, 106 Ariz. 73, 471 P.2d 269 (1970); In the Matter of Dwight, 117 Ariz. 407, 573 P.2d 481 (No. S.B.-110), filed December 12, 1977. Many of the factual determinations and legal conclusions we reach below involve judgments as to respondent's motives or states of mind in taking certain courses of action.

When disciplinary action against an attorney is recommended, it is the court's duty to determine for itself the facts. In re Johnson, 106 Ariz. 73, 471 P.2d 269 (1970). An examination of the record in this matter indicates that Clara B. Medland was referred to the respondent in early 1960.

We have the duty to make an independent determination of the facts from the record. In re Johnson, 106 Ariz. 73, 471 P.2d 269 (1970). "* * * we will nevertheless give serious consideration to the recommendations of the Board of Governors of the State Bar of Arizona, In Re Brown, 101 Ariz. 178, 416 P.2d 975 (1966), as well as the findings and recommendations of the local administrative committee.

Even if we were to find that the Board and Committee had a sufficient pecuniary interest to make them suspect, there is a safeguard in that the final arbiter in disciplinary matters is the Supreme Court which has the obligation to make an independent determination of the facts from the record. In re Johnson, 106 Ariz. 73, 471 P.2d 269 (1970); In re Lurie, 113 Ariz. 95, 546 P.2d 1126 (1976). There is no pecuniary conflict between the members of this court and the respondents and we find no lack of due process.