Opinion ID: 2266107
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Respondent's Evidence of Disability

Text: Respondent presented a compelling case in support of his mitigation defense. As the majority points out, the experts for both sides agreed that respondent's ability to conduct his professional activities was impaired by alcoholism by March 1991. What the majority finds lacking, applying a clear and convincing evidence burden, is evidence of alcohol impairment at the earlier dates covering some of respondent's violations of the disciplinary rules, specifically commencing from October 1990. Even applying the higher burden, however, the expert and lay witnesses, as well as the other evidence, make apparent that respondent's alcoholism did not appear suddenly as a condition in March of 1991, but rather developed, as is the course of such conditions, over a significant period of time. It should be noted at the outset that the hearing committee did not discredit the testimony of Stanback or any of the other seven witnesses who appeared on his behalf as to the nature and duration of his alcoholism and depression. The majority is mistaken in stating otherwise. See ante at 1116-1117. What the hearing committee rejected as warranting no weight was Stanback's admitted speculation about when he misappropriated the funds. The hearing committee noted that Stanback failed to introduce any evidence to show when he misappropriated the funds and, that he merely speculated that the misappropriation occurred in March, 1991. It was only on the issue of the timing of the misappropriation that the hearing committee accepted, as more reliable than Stanback's admitted speculation, documentary evidence. It made no such finding as to the duration of Stanback's disability. On the contrary, in concluding that Stanback's condition probably became disabling in March, 1991, the hearing committee accepted the medical evidence, recognizing that much of it is based on self-reporting. The record reflects that the hearing committee made no credibility determinations against Stanback, the four doctors, two judges, and the other witness who testified concerning his condition. The question is whether the hearing committee's finding as to the date of the disability is supported by substantial evidence in the record, viewed as a whole. See In re Micheel, 610 A.2d 231, 234 (D.C.1992) (citation omitted). Stanback argues, and an examination of the record will reveal, that it is not. Dr. Ronald Wynne, an expert witness, provided the following testimony pertinent to the point: [3] Basically, during his drinking and drugging years, which were roughly '87 to '91, Mr. Stanback clearly warranted a diagnosis of alcohol and probably cocaine dependence. That the combination of personality factors and stress factors sort of seemed to trigger off that excessive drinking. That there had been at least one period earlier in his life when he had had a similar kind of response to some stressors in his life. That he was certainly seriously disabled during that period of time . . . . He was alcohol and probably cocaine dependent for a period of probably four-plus years. And there was a period of probably a couple of years in the middle of that which seems to be when the events for which he was referred to the Bar took place, in which his alcohol and cocaine ingestion was such that, you know, he would be considered I think by any prudent professional to have been an alcoholic at that time . . . . So from the test data, from the information that he gave me, from the information that Suburban Hospital, Kolmac, and [Dr. Stanton] Samenow, all of which were consistent, I concluded that he was ingesting large amounts of alcohol at that time. And it had very serious consequences for his life. Anybody drinking that much would have similar kinds of experiences. Dr. Samenow also provided testimony bearing upon the issue of causation. He testified in pertinent part as follows: Q: Dr. Samenow, do you have an opinion whether there was any relationship between Mr. Stanback's alcohol usage and the ethical violations? A: I do have such an opinion. Q: And what is that? A: My opinion is that there is a relationship because, as I indicated earlier, with the increasingly heavy drinking that he reported to me, and we are talking a lot of drinking. . . . But the intense use of alcohol and then later the cocaine, this was '88, '89, '90, reaching its heaviest in '91. Indeed, all the experts testified that Stanback was on a downward spiral beginning in the mid 1980's. During cross examination, Dr. Wynne explained what that downward spiral actually meant: Q: Is there any indication in the Suburban records where he indicates heavily drinking in '88, '89? A: Well, you don't do an intervention when you call in friends and a professional because somebody has just been drinking for a month. I think that what motivated his wife was that the drinking, which probably had been out of hand for a good while, really got out of hand. Q: The intervention occurred at the end of 1991? A: October '91. Q: October '91. Could his drinking have been out of hand, heavily out of hand, heavily drinking, drinking every night, using cocaine, for the previous six months? A: Sure. Q: And he could have been in the condition of October of '91 whether he had been drinking heavily for the last six months or the last four years? A: I hear you, but I don't understand what you're asking. Q: You said they would not have done an intervention in October '91 if he had only been drinking heavily for a month previous? A: Yes. Q: Could you have done an intervention in October '91 and seen a man in the condition he was in October '91 if he had been drinking heavily for the last six months? A: Probably not. Q: What if he had been drinking heavily for the last eight months? A: I guess in my ownsort of theoretically, yes, I've never seen anybody who has had that short a period of time for whom someone has done an intervention. Usually these are patterns that go on for a number of years. There are people around him for whatever reason ignoring or kind of noticing it and kind of making excuses for the person. And finally something gets to a point, something is different for all kinds of people where they can no longer deny what they are seeing. The wife no longer can deny that, you know, there is a problem here. In addition, Dr. George Kolodner, the medical director of the Kolmac Clinic where Stanback received treatment, listed the following significant findings on Stanback's release form on July 8, 1992, which was an exhibit at the hearing: The patient had a 5 year history of pathological use of alcohol. Manifestations of this included: 1. Reduced internal control over use 2. Abnormally high tolerance 3. Considerable time spent in use-related activities 4. Continued use despite adverse consequences (threatened with disbarment from the BAR) The initial assessment was that the patient had a significant problem with alcohol, for which intensive treatment was indicated. The admitting diagnosis was Alcohol Dependence. The facts underlying respondent's violations of the disciplinary rules unquestionably cover a period from October 1990 through the fall of 1991. [4] The testimony of the experts, some of which is above-described, as well as that of the lay witnesses, support respondent's claim that he suffered from alcoholism during the relevant period. In addition to medical evidence of his alcoholism, respondent also presented evidence that his behavior during the period of his misconduct represented a radical departure from his prior behavior. We have recognized the significance of such evidence in determining whether alcoholism substantially affected a lawyer's professional conduct. Miller, supra, 553 A.2d at 204. [5] According to evidence stipulated to at the hearing, George Varoutses, a Virginia attorney, knew respondent through participation in the Arlington County Bar Association where both were past presidents. Varoutses had been impressed with Stanback's lawyering skills prior to the period associated with his disciplinary violations. However, Varoutses noticed that from about 1990 until March of 1992, respondent seemed to be preoccupied, unhappy, and stopped attending bar functions. Not until March 1992 did Varoutses observe that Stanback appeared to have made a complete behavioral turn around and became as involved and supportive of Bar Activities as he had been in the early years. [6] John Boyd, a friend of Stanback's for some twenty years, testified that from the period of October 1990 to December 1990, he noticed significant changes in Stanback's behavior which led him to confront Stanback in December of 1990. Specifically, Boyd had observed an adverse change in the manner with which Stanback handled his practice. With respect to Stanback's drinking habits during that period, Boyd testified as follows: Q: Now, in that period of time, specifically, as best you can recall, what was he drinking? What kinds of drinks? We are talking about between approximately October and December of 1990. A: Jack Daniels and ginger ale would beand then brandy. Jack Hennesy and ginger ale. To me those drinks don't mix. If I drinkwhen I was drinking Jack Daniels, I drank Jack Daniels and water, Hennesy straight up, you know, but he always had to have something mixed with it. That is why I made the comment that he did not like the taste of liquor. Q: Is this at a period when he was doing a lot of drinking? A: Yes.       Q: I understand you to have suggested during this period of time when you sat down and talked to him, or when you confronted him, at that point in time you had begun to believe that he might have an alcohol problem. Is that rightand I am not suggesting by asking this question that you are an expert in this, but I am just interested in you telling us what it is that made you believe, as clearly as you can, that he was having a problem with alcohol. A: Okay. The reason I was comingI came to that conclusion was because his whole behavior changed, was drastically different than what it had been in the past, and I was looking for reasons, and I think I always knew the reason, but I denied it, you know. I was in denial that he had a problem. Boyd testified that his friendship with Stanback dissipated after the confrontation, but they have rekindled it since Stanback has been in recovery. Judge William Newman, who went to law school with Stanback and shared office space with him from 1980-1988, described Stanback as one of the brightest and most hard working lawyers he knew. He was impressed with Stanback's ability to juggle many responsibilities at the same time and consistently perform each thoroughly and well. Judge Newman noted that Stanback had an active practice and court appearance schedule for which he was always prepared and on time. Judge Newman also stated that Stanback was active in the local and state bar associations. [7] Judge Bruce Lee, who had known Stanback as a professional colleague and friend, described him as a very effective lawyer who was prepared and who presented himself in court effectively on behalf of his clients. He further testified that in 1990 some friends made him aware that Stanback was missing court appearances and was not returning phone calls. He thought this was very unusual because normally, if you called him, he would call you back. Out of concern and a desire to discuss with Stanback the changes in his behavior, Judge Lee contacted him, and they agreed to meet; however, Stanback did not keep the appointment. Subsequently, they arranged to meet on October 28, 1990. Judge Lee expressed his concerns to Stanback, and the two attempted to come up with ideas to help Stanback get things under control. Thereafter, they made several appointments with each other, but Stanback did not keep them. Judge Lee also testified that Stanback, who had been elected to a new position with the local bar, started to miss meetings almost immediately. His absence was so noticeable that some of the members asked Lee to discuss the possibility of resignation with Stanback. Finally, Judge Lee, who participated in the intervention to have Stanback address his alcoholism, testified that, while he had never been with Stanback when he was drinking, he believed the changes in Stanback were related to the drinking because of what Stanback told him and his personal experiences with Stanback's change in personality. The foregoing examples of the other evidence presented at the hearing supports Stanback's claim that his alcoholism and depression did not commence suddenly in March 1991, but occurred over time during a period which includes the earliest dates of the disciplinary violations in this case. [8] Moreover, there was no evidence that Stanback was not an alcoholic in the fall of 1990 and thereafter. The factfinder should not reject arbitrarily the uncontradicted testimony of an expert or lay witness absent a basis in the record for doing so. Pansing v. United States, 669 A.2d 1297, 1302 (D.C.1995) (citing Prost v. Greene, 652 A.2d 621, 629 (D.C.1995) and Rock Creek Plaza-Woodner Ltd. v. District of Columbia, 466 A.2d 857, 859 (D.C.1983)). The evidence, expert and otherwise, established that Stanback was suffering from alcoholism at the relevant time. Respondent clearly proved these facts even under the clear and convincing standard. On this record, the findings and conclusion of the hearing committee which the Board accepted, that there was no proof that Stanback suffered from alcoholism between October 1990 and March 1, 1991, the time of the misconduct, is not supported by substantial evidence in the record, and this court should reject them. See In re Cooper, 591 A.2d 1292, 1294 (D.C.1991) (citations omitted).