See Annotated Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions at 419 (noting that timing considerations may arise in the context of identifying baseline sanctions and applicable aggravation); People v. Van Buskirk , 981 P.2d 607, 608-09 (Colo. 1999) (declining to disbar a lawyer under Standard 8.1(b) because all of the acts addressed in the current case had occurred before imposition of the discipline in the earlier case); People v. Regan , 871 P.2d 1184, 1188 (Colo. 1994) (imposing suspension, rather than disbarment, when a lawyer committed similar misconduct during the same time period as his past misconduct, and treating the first disciplinary case as an instance of a pattern of misconduct, not as prior discipline). In our view, Standard 8.1(b) should not control the outcome of this case.

Id . at 609. See also People v. Regan , 871 P.2d 1184, 1188 (Colo. 1994) (same).Considering the presumptive sanction of disbarment, the fact that aggravating factors predominate over mitigators, and the case law discussed above, the Court concludes that disbarment is the appropriate sanction.

See People v. Bottinelli, 926 P.2d 553, 558 (Colo.1996) (applying ABA Standard 8.1(b) and disbarring an attorney who was previously suspended for six months for the same misconduct); People v. Regan, 871 P.2d 1184, 1188 (Colo.1994) (treating an attorney's previous suspension as a pattern of misconduct because his current disciplinary violations occurred during same time period, but noting that “[h]ad the respondent engaged in the instant misconduct after being disciplined in 1992, there would be no question that disbarment would be appropriate” under ABA Standard 8.1(b)); People v. Dolan, 873 P.2d 766, 768–69 (Colo.

22(c), rather than previous discipline, see id. at 9.22(a). See People v. Regan, 871 P.2d 1184, 1188 (Colo. 1994). If the misconduct in this case had occurred after Field had been disciplined with the suspension, we would reject a public censure as too lenient. The hearing board also found that Field had substantial experience in the practice of law, an additional factor in aggravation.

1995) (unauthorized practice of law during suspension imposed as discipline for accepting a retainer while under administrative suspension warrants disbarment); People v. Dolan, 873 P.2d 766, 769 (Colo. 1994) (lawyer's continuing pattern of misconduct following two prior suspensions and multiple private discipline demonstrated futility of ordering another suspension, so disbarment was appropriate); People v. Regan, 871 P.2d 1184, 1188 (Colo. 1994) (had lawyer engaged in the present misconduct after earlier-imposed discipline for similar misconduct, disbarment would be warranted). Mitigating circumstances do not call for any sanction less than disbarment in this case.