Title: Stephen Brian Manion v.

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

No. 95-1474-BA 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
 
 
 
 
No.  95-1474-BA 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN             :                IN SUPREME COURT 
                                                                   
 
 
In the Matter of the Bar Admission of STEVEN 
BRIAN MANION. 
 
FILED 
 
 
NOV 29, 1995 
 
 
 Marilyn L. Graves 
  Clerk of Supreme Court 
  
Madison, WI  
 
                                                                
   
 
 
 
Review of Board of Bar Examiners decision;  Decision 
affirmed. 
 
PER CURIAM.   This is a review of the decision of the Board 
of Bar Examiners (Board) declining to certify that Steven Brian 
Manion has established the requisite character and fitness for 
admission to the Wisconsin bar because of his alcohol and cocaine 
addictions and his history of unsuccessful treatment efforts.  Mr. 
Manion contended that the Board improperly relied on certain facts 
to support its decision and failed to take into account other 
facts favorable to him.  If it does not reverse the Board's 
decision, Mr. Manion requested that the court specify the 
 
No. 95-1474-BA 
 
 
 
2 
circumstances under which he may reapply for bar admission and 
satisfy the character and fitness requirement.   
 
We determine that the Board's decision declining to certify 
Mr. Manion for bar admission is proper, based on the evidence of 
his addictions and treatment history.  In order to satisfy the 
character and fitness requirement for bar admission,1 Mr. Manion 
must establish to the court's satisfaction that his addictions are 
being controlled successfully and do not pose a threat to the 
interests of those who would retain him to represent them in the 
legal system or to his conscientious, trustworthy functioning as 
an officer of the Wisconsin courts.  Mr. Manion may do so by 
demonstrating continued sobriety and abstinence from controlled 
substances and regular attendance at treatment programs addressing 
his alcohol and cocaine addictions for a period of two years, 
dating from the addiction assessment performed at the request of 
the Board.  The record reflects Mr. Manion's commitment to 
rehabilitation following his recent treatment, and we encourage 
him to pursue that goal and reapply for bar admission upon 
satisfaction of the condition we impose.   
                     
     1  SCR 40.06 provides, in pertinent part:  Requirement as to 
character and fitness to practice law. 
 
(1)  An applicant for bar admission shall establish good 
moral character and fitness to practice law.  The purpose of this 
requirement is to limit admission to those applicants found to 
have the qualities of character and fitness needed to assure to a 
reasonable degree of certainty the integrity and the competence of 
services performed for clients and the maintenance of high 
standards in the administration of justice. 
 
No. 95-1474-BA 
 
 
 
3 
 
In this review, Mr. Manion contested the Board's reliance on 
and 
emphasis 
of 
certain 
facts; 
the 
facts 
themselves 
are 
undisputed.  Following graduation from Cornell University School 
of Law in 1975, Mr. Manion was admitted to the New York bar and 
worked as an associate in a law firm in Buffalo until August, 
1977.  From then until January, 1982, he served as assistant 
secretary and counsel of a New York corporation and moved to 
another corporation as counsel, where he remained until November, 
1990.  His abuse of alcohol and cocaine reached the addictive 
stage in 1987 and worsened thereafter.  At his request, his 
employer transferred him in mid-1990 to the position of general 
manager of an enterprise in Green Bay, Wisconsin, where he served 
until the business closed in December, 1993.   
 
While in Green Bay, following his conviction in June, 1991 of 
driving while intoxicated, Mr. Manion completed a rehabilitation 
program.  Following that treatment, he relapsed on cocaine three 
times during 1991 but remained drug free from the end of that year 
through the end of 1993.   
 
When his job as manager of the Green Bay operation ended 
following its bankruptcy, Mr. Manion returned to Buffalo, New 
York, where he engaged in private law practice in a two-person 
firm.  He relapsed on cocaine in late December, 1993 and used 
cocaine on a few occasions the following month and then used it 
regularly during February and March, 1994.  Thereafter, he 
completed a relapse program in Pennsylvania, after which he 
 
No. 95-1474-BA 
 
 
 
4 
returned to Wisconsin and entered a residential treatment program 
in Green Bay.  While in that program, Mr. Manion applied to write 
the July, 1994 Wisconsin bar exam, which he passed.  After he left 
the treatment program in June, 1994 and until early January, 1995, 
Mr. Manion had individual therapy sessions with mental health 
counselors, who identified his need for continued involvement in 
recovery programs.   
 
As part of the bar admission application process, the Board 
required Mr. Manion to undergo an alcohol and drug assessment, 
which he did November 17, 1994 at the McBride Center for the 
Professional in Madison.  That assessment diagnosed Mr. Manion as 
cocaine and alcohol dependent in remission with an extensive 
history of numerous efforts at recovery with relapse.  The 
assessing 
physician 
concluded 
that 
Mr. 
Manion 
was 
"only 
peripherally engaged" in a recovery program and had chosen to 
avoid Narcotics Anonymous and Cocaine Anonymous as a way to 
isolate himself from the severity of his illness.   
 
The physician stated that he would not have reservations 
about Mr. Manion's ability to engage in the practice of law as 
long as he continued involvement in a recovery program.  The 
physician further recommended that in addition to obtaining a 
local sponsor and becoming involved in Narcotics Anonymous, Mr. 
Manion undergo periodic urine drug screens to document sobriety.   
 
The director of the McBride program, at the request of Mr. 
Manion's counsel, submitted a letter supporting Mr. Manion's 
 
No. 95-1474-BA 
 
 
 
5 
ability to practice law.  She noted that he had abstained from 
mood altering drugs since March, 1994, strengthened his recovery 
program significantly upon entering treatment at the McBride 
Center, and committed to a full aftercare program consisting of 
weekly urine screens and weekly individual and group therapy.  The 
director stated her opinion that Mr. Manion is "fully capable of 
practicing law at this time and maintaining the highest standards 
of excellence in his practice."  She added that the Center would 
continue to work with him and would notify the Board if any 
significant problem arose in order that corrective action could be 
taken.   
 
Having considered the foregoing, the Board made findings of 
fact on which it concluded that Mr. Manion had not met his burden 
of establishing the requisite character and fitness for bar 
admission.  The facts set forth by the Board as the basis for that 
conclusion included the following:  Mr. Manion's admitted abuse of 
cocaine and alcohol while employed in the practice of law from 
1987 to March, 1994; his return to the abuse of controlled 
substances while in the practice of law after periods of 
abstinence 
ranging 
from 
several 
months 
to 
two 
years, 
notwithstanding 
hospitalization 
and 
treatment 
during 
those 
periods; four specified treatments he received for his addictions 
since April, 1991; the need identified by the assessing physician 
for his continued involvement in recovery programs, particularly 
those addressing substance abuse, which he had avoided in the 
 
No. 95-1474-BA 
 
 
 
6 
past.  The Board noted that Mr. Manion's asserted abstinence from 
controlled substances since March, 1994 is for a period shorter 
than prior periods of abstinence that were followed by his return 
to controlled substance abuse requiring hospitalization or other 
treatment.  
 
Mr. Manion did not dispute the Board's findings of fact but 
objected to what he considered the implications and suggestions 
inherent in those findings.  He asserted that the findings falsely 
suggest that his substance abuse had an adverse impact on his 
practice of law, contrary to the report of the New York 
disciplinary authorities that no complaints or disciplinary 
proceedings had been brought against him and the absence of any 
evidence that his corporate employment had been affected.  He also 
contended that by implication the Board determined that his need 
for continued treatment establishes that he has not been 
rehabilitated and that it presumes he will relapse because he has 
done so in the past.   
 
None of those contentions has merit, nor does Mr. Manion's 
insistence that the Board has "seemingly" concluded that substance 
abuse is a moral lapse rather than a treatable disease.  Further, 
there is nothing in the record to support Mr. Manion's attribution 
of "attitudes, experiences and prejudices" to the Board as the 
explanation for its decision to decline certification of his 
character and fitness to practice law.   
 
No. 95-1474-BA 
 
 
 
7 
 
The Board gave appropriate consideration to Mr. Manion's 
repeated abuse of alcohol and cocaine while employed in the legal 
profession as a private practitioner and as corporate counsel, as 
well as his return to substance abuse following lengthy periods of 
abstinence, even after hospitalization and treatment.  The 
findings of the Board in those respects are supported by the 
record and undisputed.  Notwithstanding the Board's erroneous 
assertion that its determination that Mr. Manion failed to 
establish the character and fitness requirement for bar admission 
is a discretionary decision and not a conclusion of law to which 
the 
court 
would 
owe 
no 
deference, 
we 
agree 
with 
that 
determination.   
 
The Board acknowledged that Mr. Manion has abstained from 
controlled substances for over a year but, on the basis of the 
court's decisions in disciplinary proceedings involving attorney 
alcoholism and drug addiction, it concluded that a longer period 
of abstinence is required to establish his fitness to be admitted 
to the practice of law.  The Board correctly noted that it is for 
the court, not the Board, to establish conditions by which an 
applicant may satisfy the character and fitness requirement for 
bar admission.   
 
We determine that the appropriate condition to impose under 
the circumstances presented is Mr. Manion's continuous abstinence 
from alcohol and controlled substances for a period of two years, 
dating from the November 17, 1994 assessment and demonstrated by 
 
No. 95-1474-BA 
 
 
 
8 
monthly random drug screens, with the results furnished to the 
Board, and his regular attendance at treatment programs addressing 
his alcohol and cocaine addictions during that period.   
 
By the Court.—The decision of the Board of Bar Examiners is 
affirmed.   
 
No. 95-1474-BA 
 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
                                                              
 
Case No.: 
 
95-1474-BA 
                                                              
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
In the Matter of the 
 
 
 
Bar Admission of: 
 
 
 
Stephen Brian Manion. 
 
 
 
___________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
BAR ADMISSION OF MANION 
 
 
 
 
                                                              
 
Opinion Filed:  
November 29, 1995 
Submitted on Briefs: 
November 2, 1995 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
                                                              
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
                                                              
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating: 
 
                                                              
 
ATTORNEYS:  
For Stephen Brian Manion there was a Petition and 
brief by Larry I. Hanson, Briony Jean Foy and Jenswold, Studt, 
Hanson & Gennrich, Madison. 
 
  
For the Board of Bar Examiners the cause was submitted on the 
brief of Steven E. Tinker, assistant attorney general, with whom 
on the brief was James E. Doyle, attorney general.