Opinion ID: 1201765
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: a six-month suspension followed by a supervised two-and-one-half-year post-reinstatement probation is an appropriate sanction for respondent's past professional misconduct

Text: In a disciplinary proceeding the court's responsibility is not to punish but to inquire into the lawyer's continued fitness, with a view to safeguarding the interests of the public, of the courts and of the legal profession. [17] A lawyer's professional misconduct (Rule 6) [18] and any personal incapacity (Rule 10) [19] that may have impeded a practitioner in performing at a minimum acceptable level are of equal importance in exploring solutions that accord with the law's imperative of ensuring protection of the public from substandard lawyers. [20] The complaint against Carpenter was pressed as a Rule 6 proceeding, which focuses on the lawyer's offending past conduct. [21] It is appropriate to take into account Carpenter's alcohol abuse, both as a potentially incapacitating agent in the Rule 10 sense and as a mitigating factor in fashioning a suitable Rule 6 disciplined. [22] A lawyer who has dealt grave financial harm to a client falls within a class of most serious offenders. [23] Whenever lawyer-generated economic injury befalls a client  a conduct that is reprehensible  imposition of harsh measures is called for. Our review of the record in this case reveals that respondent's professional misconduct visited no detriment upon his clients. [24] Carpenter is charged with making non-interest-bearing loans to his clients, commingling their funds, failing to keep a proper account of those funds and failing promptly to return them to his client. While the circumstances surrounding Carpenter's offenses might not be perceived as overly grievous, his actions nonetheless call for imposition of professional discipline. [25] Although alcoholism is not in itself enough to mitigate discipline, the fact that Carpenter recognized his problem, sought and co-operated in treatment, and is now willing to undergo supervision, convinces us that severe discipline need not be imposed. The PRT's recommendation that Carpenter be suspended from the practice of law for a six-month period followed by supervised probation for two-and-one-half years is approved. Carpenter must (a) sign a contract with the Lawyers Helping Lawyers Committee, (b) be supervised by a designated member of the Committee throughout the term of his probation, as well as participate for that length of time in the Alcoholics Anonymous program or in some other recognized organization in conformity to his agreement with the Lawyers-Helping-Lawyers program, (c) report his attendance and status to the designated member-sponsor of the Lawyers-Helping-Lawyers group, and (d) cooperate with the General Counsel of the Bar in any investigation of an alleged unprofessional conduct which has or may come to the Bar's attention. If he fails to comply with the terms of his probation, his Lawyers-Helping-Lawyers sponsor shall be required to report immediately to the General Counsel any violations with a view to pressing for additional disciplinary measures. Within six months of the date of this order Carpenter shall pay costs incurred in this proceeding  $8,523.40. Respondent stands suspended from the practice of law for six months from the day this opinion becomes final; he shall be subject to supervision for two-and-one-half years following his reinstatement; costs must be paid in full before his reinstatement. LAVENDER, V.C.J., and SIMMS, HARGRAVE, ALMA WILSON and WATT, JJ., concur. HODGES, C.J., and KAUGER and SUMMERS, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part.