Opinion ID: 1535543
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Effect of Kersey's Alcoholism on his Professional Misconduct

Text: That Franklin Kersey is an alcoholic is beyond question. No individual or organization that has participated in these proceedings has claimed otherwise. Kersey's alcoholism has been amply documented by his own testimony, the testimony of friends and colleagues, and the expert opinions of professionals in the field. The nature of alcoholism, and the level of culpability to which an alcoholic attorney should be held for his condition and resulting professional behavior, are questions of vital importance to the legal system. If Kersey had been insane at the time of his misconduct, he likely would not be facing charges of Code violations since he would not be responsible for his conduct. If Kersey's misconduct had been purely voluntary, he would surely be disbarred. But alcoholic behavior, unlike insanity on the one hand or ordinary conscious behavior on the other, is neither purely involuntary nor purely voluntary. [7] Individuals who eventually become physically addicted to alcohol, at some point, voluntarily chose to drink. Not all drinking alcoholics are totally unable to control their behavior. As the Board aptly noted, [i]t is not enough to say that the offender is an alcoholic and ipso facto causation is proven. After all, not all alcoholic lawyers steal their client's money. [8] Furthermore, unlike recovery from an ordinary disease, the alcoholic's recovery is predicated on a choice to confront his or her problem, coupled with an appropriate supportive program. [9] Nevertheless, alcoholism can result in uncontrollable behavior and severe psychological and physiological changes. In various contexts, the legal system implicitly recognizes something of the unique, dualistic nature of alcoholism. In some jurisdictions, including this one, chronic alcoholism is an absolute defense to charges of public intoxication. [10] But rarely is alcoholism a defense to criminal liability. [11] More commonly, it is recognized as a mitigating factor in sentencing [12] and in bar discipline. [13] Today we hold that alcoholism is a mitigating factor to be considered in determining discipline. To fail to consider alcoholism as a mitigating factor would be to defy both scientific information and common sense. Excessive alcohol use affects the parts of the brain involving memory, emotion and higher level functioning. Alcohol and Health, supra note 7, at xv. Alcohol also interferes with the brain's electrical system and the neurotransmitters which convey thoughts, feelings and learning throughout the body. Franks, supra note 7, at 64. Chronic alcoholism may lead to Korsakoff's syndrome, characterized by severe memory loss, impaired learning, and brain injury, Alcohol and Health, supra note 7, at 28, or to alcoholic dementia. Alcoholic dementia, which is similar to Alzheimer's disease, results in a decline in abstracting abilities, problem solving and verbal expression. [14] Alcohol also acts as a depressant. Alcoholics suffer from feelings of futility, and they exhibit signs of reality distortion, such as paranoia, aggressiveness, extreme lack of confidence and an inability to accept criticism, or to see how their behavior is affecting others. [15] Franks, supra note 7, at 64. The judgment and attention span of alcoholics are similarly impaired. Alcohol and Health, supra note 7, at 39. While we believe that it is an impossible burden to prove that Kersey's alcoholism caused each and every disciplinary violation, the fact that alcoholism has a severe effect on human physiology and behavior, along with the record evidence of Kersey's own behavior, establish that Kersey's professional conduct was substantially affected by his alcoholism. Kersey's alcohol abuse affected his thoughts and judgment. According to Dr. Whitfield, Kersey was in the late middle stage of alcoholism by the late 1970's. At that stage, the continued use of large amounts of alcohol results in the progressive impairment of the ability to think, remember, and make decisions. John Wright, director of treatment at Pilot House, testified that Kersey's thinking was delusional during his stay there. Dr. Hennigan, a psychiatrist experienced in treating alcoholics, also testified that Kersey showed poor judgment. Kersey himself testified that many of his thoughts and writings during this period were irrational and nonsensical. We agree with the Committee and the Board that a sufficient nexus between Kersey's alcoholism and his misconduct has been established. But for Kersey's alcoholism, his misconduct would not have occurred. [16] We hold that this but for test is the standard that must be met in order to prove causation in disciplinary cases involving alcoholism. [17]