Opinion ID: 1547486
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Post-discipline conduct

Text: The Hearing Committee that initially recommended Respondent's suspension issued its report on January 19, 2000. Between that time and December 2000, when the Court issued its final opinion in the matter, Petitioner tested positive for alcohol use, in violation of the rehabilitation programs with which he was then involved, on three occasions. See Findings of Fact 8, 10, 11. Although there is no direct evidence of alcohol use or criminal conduct after that time, Bar Counsel is not required to prove improper post-suspension conduct. Rather, the burden rests on Petitioner to prove good conduct, specifically, improvement in the conduct that lead to his discipline. See Patkus, 841 A.2d at 1269 (petitioner who had been disbarred for misappropriation had obligation to prove improvement in his precarious personal financial situation that led to misappropriation). Petitioner has failed to meet this burden. In his Post-Hearing Reply Brief, Petitioner stated that he continues to seek treatment for his alcohol abuse. Post-Hearing Reply Brief at 2. The Hearing Committee concluded that this would appear to be an acknowledgment that Petitioner has not yet changed his pattern of alcohol consumption. Certainly there is no clear and convincing evidence that he has. HC Rpt. at 7. Petitioner provided no documentary proof of successful attempts at rehabilitation, nor any witnesses who could testify to such attempts. The only witness other than Petitioner who testified as to Petitioner's post-discipline conduct, Dr. Stejskal, testified that Petitioner appeared to be intoxicated at his evaluation in September 2001. We agree with the Hearing Committee that Petitioner has not met his burden of proof on this Roundtree factor.