In the Matter of Edward Neal Davis.

Summary

The Court rejected Davis's petition for voluntary discipline because his admitted conduct—knowingly notarizing a deed signature that was not executed in his presence—supported a potential violation of the rule prohibiting dishonest, fraudulent, deceitful, or misleading professional conduct, yet he refused to admit that violation. The Court explained that the rule does not require resulting harm and, to the extent it contains an intent element, the relevant intent concerns whether the conduct was intended or likely to mislead or deceive. The Court noted that lack of intent to cause harm and absence of harm could mitigate discipline but did not justify accepting the petition on this record.