When determining whether gross overcharging constitutes professional misconduct or merely unsatisfactory professional conduct, character evidence, post-complaint conduct, restitution, and lack of prior blemish are irrelevant — those matters go only to penalty. A practitioner who declines to give sworn evidence to explain grossly excessive charges risks the drawing of adverse inferences, including that the overcharging was dishonest or grossly reckless. The protective purpose of disciplinary orders extends beyond the individual practitioner to deterring similar conduct by others and maintaining public confidence in the profession.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 84 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 84 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.