Opinion ID: 2517817
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the attorney met the burden of proof necessary for reinstatement.

Text: ¶ 9 The genesis of this cause is Rule 10, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S.2001 Ch.1, App-1, which concerns suspension of a lawyer from the practice of law due to personal incapacity. Personal incapacity includes mental or physical illness, active misfeasance, or repeated neglect or habitual use of alcohol, drugs, or other mentally or physically disabling substances. [10] Respondent's incapacity and his threat of substantial and irreparable public harm became obvious, and the Bar Association properly sought an immediate interim suspension of the attorney's license to practice law. [11] Respondent agreed to the interim suspension and admitted that he was incapable of practicing law. [12] We agreed and suspended respondent on April 24, 2006, until further order of the Court. ¶ 10 Once the Court issues an interim suspension, the next questions in the proceedings become: 1) whether the attorney can make an adequate showing that the incapacity is removedi.e., that the attorney now has the personal capacity to resume the practice of law; and 2) what amount of discipline, if any, is due for the attorney's misconduct toward clients. The Bar Association and the attorney argue that he has demonstrated proof that: 1) the attorney is no longer threatened by a personal incapacity; 2) the attorney's conduct will conform to the high standards required of a member of the bar; and 3) the attorney has demonstrated that he satisfies the other pertinent criteria for reinstatement. ¶ 11 The responsibility of this Court in disciplinary proceedings is not to punish but rather to inquire into and to gauge a lawyer's continued fitness to practice law, with a purpose of safeguarding the interest of the public, of the courts, and of the legal profession. [13] The nondelegable, constitutional responsibility to regulate the practice and the ethics, licensure, and discipline of legal practitioners is solely vested in this Court. [14] ¶ 12 In a Rule 10 proceeding the main objective is to minimize the potential risk to the public of harm from a practitioner's incapacity. The focus is not exclusively on the past; rather the focus is on the practitioner's present condition and its future consequences. [15] A disability does not shield a practitioner from professional responsibility. Where the facts so warrant, discipline could be imposed even when the attorney is also found to be personally incapable of practicing law. [16] However, the disability may serve as a mitigating factor when searching for suitable discipline. [17] For instance, alcohol abuse or alcoholism may serve as a mitigating factor where the offending attorney recognizes the problem and seeks and cooperates in treatment, [18] as the attorney did in this case. ¶13 Rule 10.11, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S.2001 Ch. 1, App. 1-A, directs that the procedures, insofar as they are applicable, for resuming the practice of law after the removal of a personal incapacity are the same as the procedures as those provided in Rule 11, [19] following suspension upon disciplinary grounds. [20] It makes no difference whether the suspension resulted from an interim suspension for personal incapacity [21] or from a suspension pursuant to a Rule 10 proceeding where no interim suspension was sought. [22] In requesting reinstatement, the lawyer must establish by clear and convincing evidence that: 1) the condition is no longer a threat rendering the applicant personally incapable of practicing law; and 2) the applicant's conduct will conform to the high standards required of a member of the Oklahoma Bar. Further, the applicant must present stronger proof of qualifications than one seeking admission for the first time. [23] ¶ 14 We look at several criteria for reinstatement when a lawyer has been either disbarred or has resigned pending disciplinary proceedings while holding to our primary duty of safeguarding the public, the courts, and the legal profession. [24] The factors include: present moral fitness; consciousness of the wrongfulness and disrepute brought on the profession; extent of rehabilitation; seriousness of the original misconduct; conduct subsequent to discipline; time elapsed since the original discipline; petitioner's character, maturity, and experience; and present competence in legal skills. [25] While all the factors are relevant when the suspension results from an incapacity to practice law, those weighing most heavily to the incapacity are: 1) the extent of rehabilitation of the affliction attributable to the incapacity; 2) the conduct subsequent to the suspension and treatment received for the condition; and 3) the time which has elapsed since the suspension. ¶ 15 To be reinstated, the attorney must make a showing that, over a significant amount of time, he has maintained sobriety and refrained from abusing drugs or alcohol; passed random drug tests; attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings; sought necessary counseling and participated in Lawyers Helping Lawyers; has diligently pursued his sobriety; and has met the other factors necessary for reinstatement. ¶ 16 At the second reinstatement hearing, respondent demonstrated every factor which we consider for reinstatement due to a personal incapacity: present moral fitness; consciousness of the wrongfulness and disrepute brought on the profession; extent of rehabilitation; seriousness of the original misconduct; conduct subsequent to discipline; time elapsed since the original discipline; petitioner's character, maturity, and experience; and present competence in legal skills. ¶ 17 Eleven witnesses who ranged from three district court judges, the director and a mentor from Lawyers Helping Lawyers, respondent's family, and the Oklahoma County Public Defender, all with personal firsthand knowledge of respondent's recovery testified as to all of these factors. Other affidavits and numerous exhibits were submitted to support respondent's reinstatement. Respondent has continually passed monthly random drug tests and over a year has elapsed since he first began treatment. It was undisputed that respondent, prior to his affliction, was an excellent attorney and asset to the Bar. We applaud respondent for his efforts to seek treatment, get sober, remain clean, and overcome his problems of drug and alcohol abuse. ¶ 18 Upon de novo review, we find that clear and convincing evidence shows that: 1) respondent is no longer under an incapacity which would preclude him from practicing law; and 2) respondent's conduct will conform to the high standards required of a member of the Oklahoma Bar. We find it unnecessary to impose additional stipulations to the reinstatement because if respondent were to relapse and become incapacitated again, he would be subject to suspension. While the steps recommended by the trial panel are laudable, we are not making them a condition of reinstatement.