Opinion ID: 2207566
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Respondent's Expert Testimony

Text: In support of his mitigation claim, Respondent offered the expert testimony of Ms. Susann Makepeace, a counselor to individuals suffering from drug or alcoholic abuse; Dr. Rodney V. Burbach, a board certified psychiatrist, Dr. Amazair McAllister, a family practitioner; and Dr. Linda Berg-Cross, a clinical psychologist. Ms. Makepeace evaluated Respondent on January 24, 1990. (1/3/91, at 73) Based on a history given by Respondent, Ms. Makepeace ascertained that he had a long-standing problem with drugs and alcohol. ( Id. at 75) She subsequently spoke to Respondent a few times on the telephone, and saw him once, in March of 1990. ( Id. at 76). At that time, he appeared to be committed to his recovery. ( Id. at 96) She referred him to Dr. Burbach. ( Id. at 75) Dr. Burbach first saw Respondent in January of 1991. In Dr. Burbach's opinion, Respondent was a very sick person. He was unfocused and disorganized and repetitious. ( Id. at 199) Dr. Burbach learned that Respondent had suffered from Bells' Palsy, and had undergone surgery in June of 1984. Dr. Burbach concluded that Respondent was addicted to benzodiazepinesValium, Klonopin, Ativan, and Xanax. ( Id. at 221) He had Respondent admitted to Suburban Hospital for detoxification. ( Id. at 224) Dr. Burbach was informed that, as of January 1990, Respondent's IQ was 88, and was 100 about a year later. He testified that the increase in IQ showed that Respondent is better, but he has a ways to go. In his opinion, Respondent's IQ must have been more than a hundred before his illness. ( Id. at 225) It was Dr. Burbach's understanding that Respondent, after leaving Suburban Hospital, continued going to meetings of Alcoholic Anonymous about three times a week. He also continued to attend Dr. Burbach's weekly therapy sessions. ( Id. at 231) In Dr. Burbach's opinion, the primary cause of Respondent's misconduct was the drug ingestion and the toxicity. ( Id. at 249) Dr. Burbach testified that, but for his impairment, Respondent's misconduct would not have occurred. ( Id. at 256) However, he also testified that he believed Respondent knew he should not be doing that, i.e., misappropriating clients' funds. ( Id. at 255) Dr. Burbach had not read the complaints or the specifications of charges against Respondent, but he said he understood in sort of a general way that there was a problem with bookkeeping and with misappropriation of funds. ( Id. at 269) On the issue of rehabilitation, Dr. Burbach stated that there appears to be a level of impairment that would prevent [Respondent] from functioning as an attorney. Nevertheless, Dr. Burbach believed that Respondent was sufficiently rehabilitated so that he is not likely to repeat the misconduct of the type that he understood Respondent was engaging in ... prior to January of 1990. ( Id. at 278) In a later hearing on the issue of rehabilitation, Dr. Burbach testified to his understanding, based on representations of Respondent, that Respondent had been attending Alcoholic Anonymous meetings two or three times a week since February of 1990, whereas, in fact, he had, as of the date of the hearing (October 21, 1991), only been attending meetings for a period of four or five months of a group that met once a week. (10/21/91 at 88, 241) [7] Dr. Burbach believed it very important for Respondent to attend AA meetings two or three times a week. He considered it indicative of his continuing to get well, ( Id. at 243), and would be troubled if Respondent had misrepresented to him the number of times he had attended AA meetings because I think AA is a good thing that recovering people ought to do, but also honesty is the hallmark of recovery. Somebody to be explicitly dishonest in an important kind of way would lead me to question the recovery a lot. ( Id. at 245) Respondent testified that he attended AA meetings primarily every Monday when my schedule does not conflict. ( Id. at 88) Although Dr. Burbach also believed it important that Respondent have an active sponsor in the AA program, Respondent had no sponsor. ( Id. at 90, 244) Respondent entered a weekly group therapy session under the supervision of Dr. Burbach after being released from Suburban Hospital as an outpatient. However, he has attended only about 70 percent of the time. ( Id. at 250) Respondent is receiving no other rehabilitative therapy ( Id. at 83-97), and has undergone no urine testing for benzodiazepines since September of 1990. ( Id. at 235) Dr. McAllister first saw Respondent in April of 1989. He felt that Respondent was addicted to Valium. (1/4/91, at 25-26) [8] Based on the history given him by Respondent, Dr. McAllister understood that Respondent had been taking anywhere from 50 to 120 milligrams of Valium on a daily basis for at least two to three years. ( Id. at 42) At the end of 1989, Dr. McAllister recommended that Respondent consult a psychiatrist because he felt that he could not help him overcome his addiction to benzodiazepines. ( Id. at 29) In Dr. McAllister's opinion, Respondent had been dependent on these drugs for as much as two years. ( Id. at 38) Respondent's last visit to Dr. McAllister was in November of 1990. ( Id. at 27) Dr. McAllister's testified that Respondent's use of drugs would have a direct effect on cognitive functioning on any level. ( Id. at 39) Dr. Berg-Cross is an expert in the field of clinical psychology, in particular the field of intelligenceIQ testing. (10/21/91 at 18) She administered a Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-R) test to Respondent on August 7, 1991 which showed that Respondent had a Full Scale IQ of 123, with a Verbal IQ of 126 and a Performance IQ of 112. ( Id. at 23) A Full-Scale IQ of 123 would place the individual tested in the top ten percent of the population. A Verbal IQ of 126 would place the individual tested two standard deviations above the mean. A Verbal IQ score of 130 would place the individual in the top two percent of the population. ( Id. at 27-28) Dr. Berg-Cross testified that the increase in Respondent's IQ from August and September of 1990 was very significant. She explained the increase, given the history that I know now, by the results of the effects of the drugs wearing off of him and his regaining levels of former functioning. ( Id. at 40-41) It was her opinion that, in view of her understanding of the Respondent's addiction and the increase in the IQ, Respondent is substantially rehabilitated or recovered from his drug abuse. ( Id. at 66-67)