Opinion ID: 2499764
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Petitioner's Psychiatric and Medical Condition

Text: In anticipation of his reinstatement hearing, Petitioner requested that Dr. David Wahl (Wahl) independently evaluate his psychiatric and medical condition and opine as to his fitness to practice law. As Wahl testified, he interviewed Petitioner twice, each time for forty-five minutes, in order to discuss his conviction, incarceration, physical condition, and relationship with alcohol. According to Wahl's diagnosis, Petitioner is in stable remission from alcohol abuse, a condition characterized by periods of intoxication that do not result in addiction. Wahl distinguished alcohol abuse from alcoholism, a condition that is chronic and requires constant monitoring and vigilance. As Wahl opines in a report he drafted at Petitioner's request, Petitioner's abuse of alcohol was closely linked to situational drinking, and did not rise to the level of creating an alcohol dependency. [26] Wahl also adjudges Petitioner to have minimal risk of relapse in his sobriety, given his solid record of abstinence and excellent understanding of his past diagnosis, and risks therein. [27] Although Wahl suggests in his report that Petitioner seek a brief course of individual psychotherapy to address and resolve continuing minor symptoms lingering from the tragedy of 2004, [28] he also testified that, in his opinion, Petitioner is sufficiently rehabilitated from alcohol abuse and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder such that he is fit to practice law. For his part, Petitioner recounted how he began to drink heavily several years prior to the accident, after his mother passed away. He started frequently visiting his father, who lived alone, and they would drink together over dinner. When his father died in 2001, Petitioner continued drinking alone, in part due to the underlying sadness of losing [his] parents. Rather than learn how to grieve for his loss or seek appropriate tools to help him do so, he explained, he drank in order to feel the effects of alcohol. The accident led him to realize that he had allowed himself and his drinking habits to go unchecked. Nevertheless, Respondent does not consider himself a recovering addict and does not believe the AA's twelve-step program applies to him, since those are reserved for true alcoholics. He testified that he does not drink and has no desire to do so, but he is not doing anything more than that as a preventive measure to address his diagnosis as an alcohol abuser. Petitioner observed that his decision to drink and drive on September 4, 2004, was the worst error of judgment in his life, and the remorse and guilt he feels from causing Mansfield's death has never left. Reflecting on the past eight years, he stated that he has mustered all [his] strength to get to where he is, recognizing that he can't turn the clock back but can only go forward. Petitioner explained that he seeks reinstatement to the practice of law because he loves the legal profession, he has learned from this experience, and he believes he will be a better lawyer for it. He noted that he reads legal periodicals, has kept abreast of legal developments, and has completed at least seventy-five hours of continuing legal education during his suspension. [29] Driscoll, for whom Petitioner has worked as a paralegal during his period of parole, praised Petitioner as an earnest, gifted individual who works like a dog, is professionally competent, committed to his family, focused on decency in the law, and whose cash-register honesty is meticulous. Driscoll stated that he harbors no reservations in recommending the Hearing Board reinstate Petitioner's law license.