Title: Matter of Wright
Citation: 648 N.E.2d 1148
Docket Number: 02S00-9410-DI-986
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: April 6, 1995

648 N.E.2d 1148 (1995)
In the matter of Robert B. Wright.
No. 02S00-9410-DI-986.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
April 6, 1995.
*1149 Robert S. Bechert, Tremper, Bechert, Leonard &amp; Terrill, P.C., Fort Wayne, for respondent.
Donald R. Lundberg, Executive Secretary, Indianapolis, for Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Com'n.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent Robert B. Wright has been charged by the Disciplinary Commission with violating Ind.Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(b).[1] Pursuant to Ind.Admission and Discipline Rule 23, Section 11(g), the Respondent and the Commission have tendered for this Court's approval a statement of circumstances and conditional agreement for discipline, therein agreeing that the Respondent engaged in the charged misconduct, and further agreeing on a sanction to be imposed for that misconduct. The Respondent has tendered an affidavit with the agreement, pursuant to Admis.Disc.R. 23(17)(a). After careful examination of all matters submitted in this cause, we now find that the agreement should be approved. This opinion more fully sets out the facts, conclusions of law, and professional sanction imposed in this case.
Adopting the factual recitation contained in the agreement, we now find that the Respondent was admitted to the Bar of this state on August 18, 1987, and is therefore subject to this Court's disciplinary jurisdiction. On April 25, 1994, the Respondent was charged in the Allen Superior Court, by information in two counts, with the crimes of possession of cocaine and failure to pay substance excise tax. Pursuant to its defining statute, each of those crimes is punishable as a Class D felony.[2] On August 17, 1994, pursuant to a plea agreement and the alternative sentencing guidelines contained in I.C. XX-XX-X-X(b), a judgment of conviction was entered against the Respondent, and he was sentenced as a Class A misdemeanant. He received a one year suspended sentence and was placed on one year of active probation. This Court suspended the Respondent from the practice of law pendente lite on December 21, 1994.
Following his arrest, the Respondent admitted his wrongdoing and acknowledged that he had a drug and alcohol dependency. *1150 An attorney who suffers a chemical dependency may be unfit to represent clients, because such an attorney may be incapable of keeping his client's secrets, giving effective legal advice, fulfilling his obligation to the courts, and so on. In re Stults (1994), Ind., 644 N.E.2d 1239, citing In re Oliver (1986), Ind., 493 N.E.2d 1237. We find that by the misconduct set out above, the Respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) by engaging in a criminal act, the possession of cocaine, that reflects adversely on his fitness to practice law. Stults, 644 N.E.2d 1239 (attorney's unjustified and illegal chemical dependency on cocaine, which resulted in a criminal conviction for possession of cocaine, was violative of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b)).[3]
The parties have agreed upon a six-month period of suspension, with part of that period conditionally stayed, followed by a two year probationary period. Provisions of the agreement subject the Respondent to substantial rehabilitative and monitoring activities both during the term of his suspension period and during the period of probation. We accept the agreed discipline, in part based on the extensive mitigating factors to which the parties have stipulated. Most important, we think, is the Respondent's willingness to admit his wrongdoing, to acknowledge the chemical and alcohol dependency leading to his professional misconduct, and to seek relevant medical and professional treatment and rehabilitative programs. Specifically, after his arrest on April 20, 1994, the Respondent entered a chemical dependency program, completed it, and has continued involvement in the program's "after care" protocol. He has regularly attended meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous, Cocaine Anonymous, and Narcotics Anonymous. He has met regularly with a psychiatrist and a counselor, in addition to his required meetings with his criminal probation officer. In the course of his adult active probation, the Respondent has submitted to at least two drug screenings, and tested negative each time. The parties agree that since his arrest, the Respondent has completely abstained from using drugs or alcohol.
Throughout this disciplinary proceeding, the Respondent has cooperated fully with the Commission, most notably by providing full disclosure of facts, and by willingly entering into the agreed resolution of this matter. Prior to the present misconduct, the Respondent's professional and criminal records were unblemished. We also note that the Respondent, after his arrest, provided pro bono legal representation of drug and alcohol impaired indigent persons up until the time of his pendente lite suspension.
The Commission and the Respondent also stipulate to the fact that the Respondent's misconduct had no adverse effect on any client. One of the functions of the disciplinary process is to protect the public from attorneys who are, for whatever reason, unfit to practice law. In re Stover-Pock (1992), Ind., 604 N.E.2d 606, In re Erbecker (1987), Ind., 513 N.E.2d 1214. The fact that no harm comes to a client is good fortune, but not controlling. Stults, 644 N.E.2d 1239, 1241. Thus, we give this purported mitigating factor diminished weight.
We also accept the parties' agreement because we are convinced that the rehabilitative steps the Respondent has taken thus far demonstrate his significant commitment to overcoming his addictions. Initiation of a meaningful program aimed at treatment and rehabilitation is prerequisite to the Respondent's readmission to the practice of law. The agreement tendered by the parties contains extensive provisions to satisfy this need. The agreement also provides for exhaustive monitoring of the Respondent both during his suspension and for two years thereafter. Thus, we are convinced also that the agreement will allow this Court to fulfill its obligation of protecting the public, the *1151 Bar, and the profession from any future misconduct of the Respondent.
It is, therefore, ordered that the Respondent, Robert B. Wright, is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, beginning December 21, 1994. The remaining term of the Respondent's suspension is hereby stayed, and the Respondent is conditionally reinstated, effective immediately.[4] It is further ordered that the Respondent shall be subject to a period of probation for a term of two years from the date of this opinion, and that his right to practice law shall be subject to the following terms and conditions contained in the approved agreement:
This Court shall maintain continuing jurisdiction over this matter until such time as the Executive Secretary of the Commission has certified to the Court that the Respondent has complied with the terms of this order. The burden of compliance with the terms of this order shall remain with the Respondent, and all costs of compliance with this order shall be borne by the Respondent. If, at any time during the Respondent's period of probation, the Commission should have reasonable cause to believe that the Respondent is in material breach of any of the terms and conditions of this order, the Executive Secretary may petition the Court for relief from the conditionally stayed period of suspension. Upon a finding by the Court that the Respondent has materially breached any of the terms and conditions of this order, the Respondent shall be suspended for the entire unstayed portion of his six month suspension period, at the conclusion of which he will not be automatically reinstated, but shall be eligible to petition for reinstatement in accordance with Admis.Disc.R. 23(4) and (18). Upon the Respondent's successful completion of all the terms and conditions of the two year period of probation, as set forth above, he will be relieved of the obligation to further comply with this order and will be fully reinstated to the practice of law.
Costs of this proceeding are assessed against the Respondent.
[1]  Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) provides:

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;
.....
[2]  See I.C. XX-XX-X-X and I.C. 6-7-3-11, respectively.
[3]  This Court has stated that the possession of illegal drugs by an attorney "indicates an inevitable contact with the chain of distribution and trafficking of illegal drugs ... [t]he impact [of which] is of such severity that it affects adversely the public's perception of Respondent's fitness to be an officer of the Court." In re Jones (1987), Ind., 515 N.E.2d 855, 856 (attorney found to have violated D.R. 1-102(A)(6) for illegal possession of marijuana).
[4]  We allow the Respondent to be conditionally reinstated as of the date of this opinion pursuant to the terms of the tendered agreement, which call for a stay of a portion of the six month term of suspension upon the Respondent's submission to the Commission of a "certification" stating that the Respondent has remained sober and free from the use of alcohol or illicit drugs, and that he had arranged with the Indiana State Bar Association's Impaired Lawyer's Committee to be extensively monitored by a member of that Committee. The Respondent timely submitted his certification to the Commission, stating therein that he had complied with these terms.