in connection with ... services performed in the practice of law" and contrasting this case with another in which "[the misconduct occurred in connection with services performed by [the attorney] in the practice of law"); cf. In re Miles, 339 P.3d 1009, 1020 (Alaska 2014) (noting that duplicitous acts by an attorney were "particularly" damaging when committed "while acting in her capacity as an attorney"). 17 . Op. at 386-87. 18 . - ABA Sranparps, supra note 9, at § IL. 19 . We have observed that "(there are few more egregious acts of professional misconduct ... than the misappropriation of [a] client's funds held in trust." In re Buckalew, 731 P.2d 48, 55 (Alaska 1986) (quoting In re Beckmann, 79 N.J. 402, 400 A.2d 792, 793 (1979); see also In re Richmond, 996 So.2d 282, 289 (La.2008) (<HOLDING>). 20 . Moreover, we have held that the
holding that normal attorneyclient relationship does not bar rule 60b relief when the evidence is clear that the attorney and his client were not acting as one holding a suit against a sheriff in his individual capacity was subject to section 1146llls notice requirements because the sheriff was acting in his official capacity holding that a state officer sued in his individual capacity may be held personally liable for damages under 42 usc  1983 based upon actions taken in his official capacity recognizing that because an attorney was acting in his personal capacity  and there was therefore no potential for client harm from his misconduct his actions may be viewed as less egregious than the actions at issue in cases involving attorneys acting in representative capacities holding that a judgment in a suit in which a trustee was acting individually would not bind him acting in his capacity as trustee