Title: Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. Eugene S. Calhoun

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

No. 94-1770-D 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
 
 
 
 
No.  94-1770-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN             :                IN SUPREME COURT 
                                                                   
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against EUGENE S. CALHOUN, Attorney at Law. 
 
FILED 
 
 
OCT 24, 1995 
 
 
 Marilyn L. Graves 
  Clerk of Supreme Court 
  
Madison, WI  
 
                                                                
   
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney's 
license 
suspended. 
 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney Eugene S. Calhoun appealed from the 
recommendation of the referee that his license to practice law be 
suspended for three years as discipline for conduct that resulted 
in two convictions for possession and delivery of cocaine and for 
numerous 
misrepresentations 
to 
the 
sentencing 
court, 
the 
prosecutor and physicians concerning his use of cocaine and the 
type of treatment for addiction he pursued.  We determine that the 
seriousness 
of 
Attorney 
Calhoun's 
misconduct 
warrants 
the 
recommended license suspension and we make its commencement 
retroactive to September 20, 1994, the date on which we summarily 
 
No. 94-1770-D 
 
 
 
2 
suspended Attorney Calhoun's license, upon motion of the Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility (Board) when it filed the 
complaint in this proceeding, following his felony conviction of 
two counts of delivery of cocaine.  In addition, we impose on 
Attorney Calhoun the conditions recommended by the referee to 
address his recovery from addiction.   
 
Attorney Calhoun was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 
1950 and practiced in Madison.  He has not previously been the 
subject of an attorney disciplinary proceeding.  In the instant 
proceeding, he agreed to plea no contest to the Board's complaint 
in return for which the Board urged the referee to recommend a 
one-year license suspension retroactive to the date of summary 
suspension as discipline.  Thus, the facts found by the referee 
are not in dispute.    
 
Attorney Calhoun began using cocaine in the spring of 1984 
during a social outing with two clients and others who knew he was 
a lawyer.  Between that time and the spring of 1987, he ingested 
cocaine on most weekends.  His drug use was known by some cocaine 
dealers, who would call him at his law office or at his home to 
arrange sales.   
 
In March, 1987, Attorney Calhoun was treated briefly and 
informally for cocaine dependence but he declined his physician's 
recommendation that he enter a formal treatment program.  His 
weekend use of cocaine continued and, beginning October, 1989, he 
was treated for two months as an outpatient at the McBride Center 
 
No. 94-1770-D 
 
 
 
3 
for the Professional, where he was diagnosed as having both a 
cocaine dependency and a dependency on percocet, an opiate 
classified as a controlled substance, which had been prescribed 
for pain.  Treatment staff recommended that he either enter 
inpatient treatment or gradually discontinue using percocet but 
Attorney Calhoun refused to do so and his treatment was 
terminated.   
 
Following that treatment and continuing at least through May, 
1992, Attorney Calhoun began to inject cocaine intravenously and 
use the drug at his home, on some occasions with another person.  
During this time, he received medical treatment for intermittent 
infections in chest wounds he told his physician were caused by a 
series of accidents.  By December, 1986, medical staff observed 
that the wounds might have been self-inflicted.  In September, 
1991, medical treatment uncovered parts of a needle cap in 
Attorney Calhoun's infected right breast.  Two months later, when 
he returned to the clinic with another infection, an X-ray 
revealed the tip of a ballpoint pen in the same location.   
 
The clinic then told Attorney Calhoun it would no longer 
provide him medical care because of the evidence that he had been 
inflicting chest wounds in order to obtain prescriptions for 
percocet.  The clinic warned him of the danger of the injuries and 
of the possibility that his self-infliction of wounds in order to 
get prescriptions for a controlled substance might constitute a 
criminal violation.  Notwithstanding the McBride diagnosis and the 
 
No. 94-1770-D 
 
 
 
4 
clinic's determination, Attorney Calhoun testified under oath in 
September, 1994, during the Board's investigation, "Nothing I have 
done with percocet is abuse and nobody ever said that and that 
goes back to 1975."   
 
Following his arrest after a traffic stop in May, 1992, 
Attorney Calhoun was charged with one misdemeanor count of cocaine 
possession.  While that criminal case was pending, Attorney 
Calhoun was interviewed by a reporter of a national magazine who 
intended to publish an article about the drug charge pending 
against Attorney Calhoun.  The January, 1993 issue of the magazine 
included that article, quoting Attorney Calhoun that the drug 
charge had been brought because of "politics" and that the blood 
test on which it was based was "nonsense."  Attorney Calhoun was 
quoted as saying, "I've never used cocaine.  Never."  Attorney 
Calhoun acknowledged that the article quoted him correctly.   
 
Following his no contest plea to the possession charge, 
sentence was withheld and he was placed on two years' probation.  
While on probation, he continued to use cocaine, testing positive 
only two weeks after he had signed probation rules requiring that 
he not use drugs.  For that violation, he was jailed for nine 
days.  Upon his release, he entered a treatment program as ordered 
and, after completing 89 days of the 90-day program, he was 
discharged with a "poor" prognosis for long-term recovery.   
 
Six months later, in mid-October, 1993, Attorney Calhoun 
began smoking crack cocaine.  At the same time, he sought 
 
No. 94-1770-D 
 
 
 
5 
treatment from his physician for tenderness in his right chest 
and, subsequently, with an infection in that location.  He 
received 
several 
percocet 
prescriptions 
in 
the 
course 
of 
treatment.   
 
The following month, Attorney Calhoun asked an acquaintance, 
who was a cocaine addict, to inflict wounds to his chest for 
purposes of sexual gratification.  The woman did as requested, 
expecting and receiving cocaine from him in return.  While under 
oath during the Board's investigation of this matter in September, 
1994, Attorney Calhoun denied having intentionally inserted any 
foreign matter into his chest or instructing or asking anyone else 
to do so.    
 
In November, 1993, at the Board's request, Attorney Calhoun 
was seen by a physician who was to prepare a report for the Board 
regarding his fitness to practice law.  Despite his positive test 
for cocaine the preceding April and his use of crack cocaine in 
October, Attorney Calhoun told the physician that he had stopped 
using cocaine in early April, 1993 and that his frequent drug 
screens since then had been negative.   
 
Attorney Calhoun's use of crack cocaine was detected by a 
drug screen on November 23, 1993, and he was jailed for four days 
for probation violation.  Upon his release, he did not pursue 
treatment but did return to his physician with another infection, 
for which he again received a prescription for percocet.  On 
January 19, 1994, Attorney Calhoun smoked crack cocaine, possibly 
 
No. 94-1770-D 
 
 
 
6 
for the last time, at his home.  The following day, a person who 
had been driving a car leased to Attorney Calhoun was involved in 
an accident and a subsequent search of Attorney Calhoun's home 
produced drug paraphernalia.  Attorney Calhoun was then arrested 
for probation violation and jailed.  His probation was revoked the 
following February.   
 
In early March, 1994, Attorney Calhoun was charged with two 
felony counts of delivery of cocaine base and five misdemeanor 
counts of possession of drug paraphernalia.  Because of his 
earlier conviction, he was charged as a repeater.  The felony 
counts were based on the statement of a citizen informant that she 
had used cocaine base with Attorney Calhoun at his home at least 
twice in November, 1993 and that on both occasions he gave her the 
cocaine base in exchange for her inflicting wounds on his chest 
for purposes of sexual gratification.   
 
At the sentencing hearing held in March, 1993 on Attorney 
Calhoun's earlier misdemeanor possession conviction, the court 
imposed but stayed the maximum one-year jail sentence with the 
condition that Attorney Calhoun enter an inpatient treatment 
program.  Attorney Calhoun's lawyer had submitted a letter to the 
court from a friend of Attorney Calhoun, a professor of 
psychiatry, offering to oversee his treatment in California.  In 
addition to the treatment for addiction, Attorney Calhoun was to 
undergo surgery related to his chronic infections and a letter 
presented to the court in the stipulation for the stay of sentence 
 
No. 94-1770-D 
 
 
 
7 
indicated that Attorney Calhoun believed his medical condition was 
related to a shrapnel injury received during the war.   
 
At about the same time, Attorney Calhoun pleaded no contest 
to the two felony counts of delivery of cocaine base and the drug 
paraphernalia charges were dismissed.  The consent of the court in 
which that case was pending was needed for Attorney Calhoun to go 
to California for treatment and the presiding judge amended bail 
to include the provision that Attorney Calhoun was permitted to go 
to California to participate in an inpatient treatment program.   
 
Notwithstanding the court's specifications of inpatient 
treatment, the referee found that Attorney Calhoun never entered 
an "inpatient" treatment program in California.  Rather, from 
April 19 to June 2, 1994, he resided at a hotel-type guest 
facility on a university campus and commuted daily to a chemical 
dependency center, where he participated in its day-care program. 
 While that center offered an inpatient treatment program with 24-
hour 
supervision, 
the 
specialist 
treating 
Attorney 
Calhoun 
described him as a participant in the center's "out-patient" 
program.   
 
Attorney Calhoun was discharged from day care treatment on 
May 23, 1994, and was under no formal supervision until he moved 
to a sober living center 10 days later.  He returned to Wisconsin 
the following month.   
 
While in California, Attorney Calhoun obtained several 
prescriptions for percocet from the treatment specialist based on 
 
No. 94-1770-D 
 
 
 
8 
his representation that he needed the medication for arthritis 
pain.  The prescribing physician believed he was Attorney 
Calhoun's only source of percocet while in California, unaware 
that the psychiatrist who had referred Attorney Calhoun had given 
him a prescription for the drug.  One day after he returned to 
Madison, Attorney Calhoun obtained a prescription for percocet 
from his physician for pain in his chest.   
 
Attorney Calhoun never told the judges presiding in his two 
criminal cases, the prosecutor or the sheriff's department that he 
had not been in an inpatient drug treatment in California.  He 
gave the prosecutor a letter he had written in which he described 
himself as an "inpatient trainee" at the treatment center.  He 
also provided the prosecutor a printed "daily schedule" on which 
he had written, "My schedule -- not much open time."  The 
schedule, however, did not describe the daily routine of a day-
care participant but detailed the regulation of participants in 
the inpatient program, including "wake up" and "lights out" times, 
a 
medication 
distribution 
schedule, 
visiting 
hours 
and 
restrictions on telephone and television use.   
 
During a deposition in this disciplinary proceeding, Attorney 
Calhoun testified that he was at the California treatment center 
"as an inpatient," asserting, "You never left the building except 
when you were taken to AA meetings or NA meetings or CA meetings." 
 He also stated, "Every day that I was there I was under constant 
supervision, absolutely. . . . There was still a fence around [the 
 
No. 94-1770-D 
 
 
 
9 
treatment facility], a locked fence, very high.  You couldn't get 
out or anything like that."  At the sentencing hearing held 
September 23, 1994 on his felony convictions, Attorney Calhoun 
made no response to testimony and his attorney's assertion to the 
court that he had received inpatient treatment in California.   
 
Also in connection with the sentencing hearing, letters to 
the court from the referring psychiatrist and from the surgeon who 
evaluated Attorney Calhoun referred to his having suffered a 
shrapnel injury from World War II.  The sentencing judge, noting 
as a mitigating factor that Attorney Calhoun had been "wounded in 
the service of his country," withheld sentence on the felony 
conviction and placed Attorney Calhoun on probation for three 
years, with six months in jail, concurrent with his previous 
sentence, fined him $7520 and ordered him to perform community 
service.  In fact, Attorney Calhoun had not received a shrapnel 
wound during the war.   
On the basis of the foregoing facts, the 
referee made the following conclusions.  By his possession and use 
of cocaine and his delivery of cocaine base, Attorney Calhoun 
engaged in criminal acts that reflect adversely on his honesty, 
trustworthiness and fitness as a lawyer in other respects, in 
violation of SCR 20:8.4(b).1  He engaged in conduct involving 
                     
     1  SCR 20:8.4 provides, in pertinent part:  Misconduct 
 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:   
 
. . . 
 
(b)  commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the 
lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other 
respects; 
 
No. 94-1770-D 
 
 
 
10 
dishonesty, 
deceit 
and 
misrepresentation, 
contrary 
to 
SCR 
20:8.4(c),2 by the following:  (1) telling the magazine reporter 
he had never used cocaine, knowing that statement was untrue, (2) 
making material misstatements to the physician retained by the 
Board regarding his drug use and drug tests, (3) breaching the 
stipulation, order and bail conditions permitting him to leave 
Wisconsin to undergo inpatient treatment in California and giving 
the prosecutor's office materials stating or implying that he had 
spent time in such a treatment program and so testifying under 
oath at his deposition, (4) representing to medical care 
providers, the prosecutor and two circuit courts that a chest 
problem for which he underwent surgery in California had been 
caused by a shrapnel injury, (5) denying under oath that he ever 
intentionally inserted any foreign object into his chest or 
requested anyone else to do so, (6) denying under oath that he had 
ever abused percocet and stating that no one had ever said he had 
done so.   
 
As discipline for that misconduct, the referee recommended 
that the court suspend Attorney Calhoun's license to practice law 
for three years, effective the date of the court's order, and 
impose the following conditions on him during the suspension:  
                     
     2  SCR 20:8.4 provides, in pertinent part:  Misconduct 
 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:   
 
. . . 
 
(c)  engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or 
misrepresentation; 
 
No. 94-1770-D 
 
 
 
11 
submission, as the Board may direct, to random, periodic urine 
screenings for the presence of controlled substances, including 
percocet to the extent it may exceed any prescribed dosage, with 
reports of those tests furnished to the Board at its request; 
participation in 
at 
least 
thrice-weekly 
outpatient 12-step 
programs, such as Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous or 
Cocaine Anonymous, with reports verifying his attendance provided 
to the Board at its request; regular counseling, including group 
counseling, by a certified alcohol and drug abuse counselor.   
 
In making that disciplinary recommendation, the referee 
rejected the Board's position that because of the mitigating 
factors of Attorney Calhoun's age, lack of prior discipline, the 
criminal penalties imposed on him, and his poor health, a one-year 
license suspension retroactive to the date of the summary 
suspension should be recommended.  In addition to the seriousness 
of the misconduct, the referee considered numerous aggravating 
factors, including that the felony convictions for drug-related 
conduct occurred while Attorney Calhoun was on probation from a 
misdemeanor possession conviction, his extensive, intense and 
increasingly serious drug use for 10 years, his 20-year history of 
prescription drug abuse, his repeated misrepresentations, some 
under oath and after his license to practice law had been 
suspended, and the manner in which wounds were inflicted on him in 
order for him to obtain prescription drugs.   
 
No. 94-1770-D 
 
 
 
12 
 
Further, the referee found no evidence during the course of 
the disciplinary proceeding that Attorney Calhoun has acknowledged 
the seriousness of his misconduct or is remorseful for it.  
Moreover, the referee noted, he repeatedly rejected treatment 
opportunities and recommendations, thereby establishing a pattern 
of failing to acknowledge the seriousness of his drug addiction 
and make progress to remedy it.  The referee observed that 
criminal convictions, jail confinement and a summary license 
suspension have not been sufficient to deter him from repeating 
and escalating his misconduct.   
 
Contrary to Attorney Calhoun's contention in this appeal, the 
referee gave appropriate consideration to several mitigating 
factors, including his age, his poor health and the lack of 
apparent harm to any of his clients.  In the referee's opinion, 
the mitigating effect of those factors led her to recommend a 
license suspension rather than revocation.   
 
Attorney Calhoun also argued that the misrepresentations he 
made concerning drug use and the cause of his infections were 
nothing more than an aspect of denial of his drug addiction and 
should not be considered separate misconduct.  He further 
contended that he did not intend to mislead by referring to his 
California treatment experience as inpatient treatment.  In that 
regard, Attorney Calhoun appended to his brief and asked the court 
to consider in this appeal facts that were not part of the record 
to which the parties stipulated and which served as the basis of 
 
No. 94-1770-D 
 
 
 
13 
his no contest plea and of the referee's report.  The court has 
not considered any facts or assertions made by Attorney Calhoun 
that are not contained in the record in this proceeding.   
 
None of Attorney Calhoun's arguments has merit.  Moreover, we 
are unpersuaded by the arguments of the Board that the protection 
of the public and the deterrence of other attorneys from engaging 
in misconduct similar to Attorney Calhoun's can be achieved by a 
license suspension of only one year, made retroactive to the date 
of his summary suspension.  The seriousness of Attorney Calhoun's 
misconduct, its nature and extent, and his demonstrated need for 
and difficulty in pursuing treatment and rehabilitation call for 
more severe discipline -- the three-year license suspension 
recommended by the referee.  We make that license suspension 
retroactive to the commencement of the summary suspension we 
ordered at the outset of this proceeding, accepting the Board's 
position that retroactivity would be appropriate in a case where, 
as here, the Board seeks the summary suspension of an attorney's 
license following a criminal conviction for conduct that would 
warrant a substantial license suspension but not revocation.   
 
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Eugene S. Calhoun 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of three 
years, commencing September 20, 1994. 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Eugene S. Calhoun shall comply 
with the conditions recommended by the referee and set forth 
herein.   
 
No. 94-1770-D 
 
 
 
14 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this 
order Eugene S. Calhoun pay to the Board of Attorneys Professional 
Responsibility the costs of this proceeding, provided that if the 
costs are not paid within the time specified and absent a showing 
to this court of his inability to pay the costs within that time, 
the license of Eugene S. Calhoun to practice law in Wisconsin 
shall remain suspended until further order of the court.   
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Eugene S. Calhoun comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.   
 
No. 94-1770-D 
 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
                                                              
 
Case No.: 
 
94-1770-D 
                                                              
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary 
 
 
 
Proceedings Against 
 
 
 
Eugene S. Calhoun, 
 
 
 
Attorney at Law. 
 
 
 
______________________________ 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CALHOUN 
 
                                                              
 
Opinion Filed:  
October 24, 1995 
Submitted on Briefs: 
September 7, 1995 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
                                                              
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
                                                              
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating: 
 
                                                              
 
ATTORNEYS:  
For Eugene S. Calhoun there were briefs by Jack R. 
DeWitt and DeWitt, Ross & Stevens, S.C., Madison. 
 
 
For the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility there 
was a brief by Elsa P. Green, counsel, Madison.