Opinion ID: 1984253
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Committee and Board Recommendations

Text: The Hearing Committee ultimately found that all the counts charged in Docket No. 152-91 had been proven by clear and convincing evidence, in that respondent had committed actions [that] were fraudulent and deceitful as to both [McDermott] and the affected clients, and [that] reflect[ed] adversely upon Respondent's fitness to practice law (Hearing Committee Report at 18-19). Similarly, the Committee found that the count charged in Docket No. 145-92 had also been proven by clear and convincing evidence, in that respondent had represented a client whose position conflicted with that of another client (Hearing Committee Report at 20). The Committee subsequently concluded that the appropriate sanctions for those violations were disbarment in Docket No. 152-91 and a 90-day suspension in Docket No. 145-92. Having found that all the expert testimony presented by the parties was credible, the Committee then conducted its Kersey analysis. It found, but barely so, that respondent had met all of his burdens: proving by clear and convincing evidence that he had bipolar disorder; proving by a preponderance of the evidence that that disorder affected his behavior substantially enough to satisfy the causation test for this purpose; and proving by clear and convincing evidence that he had been adequately rehabilitated (Hearing Committee Report at 40-42). Once these findings were in place, the Committee moved on to mitigation and recommended that execution of the sanctions in both cases be suspended and that respondent be placed on three years probation. That probation was to include numerous detailed conditions, including: continuation of medical treatment under Dr. Kraff or a Board-approved physician; continued use of lithium; submission by Dr. Kraff of quarterly reports detailing respondent's medical condition, compliance and prognosis; abstinence from alcohol; continuation of restitution payments; monitoring of respondent's professional conduct by a Board-approved attorney, with quarterly reports by that attorney to the Board and Bar Counsel; retainment of a Board-approved accounting firm to examine client billings on a quarterly basis; and, after probation ends, semiannual submission of medical reports to Bar Counsel as long as he is a member of the District of Columbia Bar (Hearing Committee Report at 47-48). [11] By a vote of 6 to 3, the Board on Professional Responsibility rejected the Hearing Committee's finding that the bipolar disorder substantially affected respondent's professional conduct. [12] The Board reached this conclusion on the basis of several factors. First, the Board considered the definition of bipolar disorder provided by DSM-III-R and the various experts, and concluded that respondent's ability to continue a successful law practice while he was committing the misconduct did not fit within that definition. Second, rather than accepting unanimous expert testimony to the contrary, the Board perused a treatise on bipolar disorder and narcissistic personality disorder (Board Report at 37) and concluded that respondent's behavior was consistent only with the narcissistic personality disorder and not with the bipolar disorder. Third, the Board decided that the testimony of Dr. Kraff, which had most strongly favored the hypothesis that respondent's misconduct was caused solely by the bipolar disorder, was biased. [13] Finally, the Board found that narcissistic personality disorder does not overcome volition and, thus, could not be a basis for mitigation. Having rejected mitigation, the Board recommended that respondent be disbarred.