Opinion ID: 2207566
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Bar Counsel's Expert Testimony

Text: Bar Counsel offered the testimony of Dr. Richard A. Ratner, a forensic psychiatrist, and Dr. Timothy A. Koltuniak, a clinical psychologist. Dr. Ratner interviewed Respondent on five occasions between August 14 and December 26, 1990. He also reviewed a considerable amount of material relating to Respondent, and spoke to Dr. Burbach and Dr. Dove (one of Respondent's doctors). Respondent was seen by Dr. Koltuniak at Dr. Ratner's suggestion. (Bar Ex. 56) Dr. Ratner had difficulty responding to a question as to whether, but for the ingestion of the various drugs, Respondent would have misappropriated funds of clients in 1988 because he was not convinced that Respondent was in fact overusing drugs, since there are no prescription records to indicate the quantity of benzodiazepines he was consuming. (2/7/91, at 151) [9] Ultimately, Dr. Ratner was of the opinion that Respondent's misconduct was not caused by excessive use of drugs. ( Id. at 154-155) I do not see the substance abuse as being the intermediate step in the part of this that has to do with the kind of borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, so to speak, or taking from here and doing there and making decisions about making deposits in this particular account and, for example, comingling it with something else. I see that as more of a personality disorder, that modus operandi and maybe one got oneself into the kind of trouble where that was the response to the problem. Maybe you got yourself in somewhat by virtue of the substances, but I don't think that all of this behavior can be explained by Valium or benzodiazepines. ( Id. at 180) Dr. Ratner concluded in his report: Diagnostically, the MCMI-II suggests, on Axis I: Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Dysthymia, and Alcohol Abuse; and on Axis II: Narcissistic, Histrionic and Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorders. (Bar Ex. 56) He testified that Respondent has some axis one problems, some anxiety and some depression and a personality disorder and that those things together to me are sufficient to explain his behavior, including the beginning of substance abuse; in other words, why he would turn to substances if he has become depressed. (2/7/91, at 183) Dr. Ratner testified further on the issue of causation: ... I don't see any evidence to believe thateven if [Respondent] was using Valium in 1988 excessively or even Xanax, I don't see any reason to believe, other than the complaints against him, other than the issues here, I don't see any other evidence to believe that it was really impairing his functioning. ( Id. at 255) See also Id. at 233-235. Dr. Ratner had no reason to doubt that [Respondent] had the capacity to form the intent to defraud throughout the last three years. While substance dependent, he was clearly not in a perpetual state of intoxication or delirium. Much evidence of deliberate and intentional behavior exists, including his ability to carry on at least the trappings of a practice. (Bar. Ex. 56) (See also 2/7/91 at 157, 162) On the issue of rehabilitation, Dr. Ratner testified that generally these types of personality disorders don't go away. He believes that Respondent still is functioning on the level of a narcissistic personality disorder. (2/7/91, at 184) Dr. Ratner could not rule out that Respondent would not again engage in the same misconduct. The basis for Dr. Ratner's opinion was: I feel that [Respondent] did not even want to come clean to me, in my opinion, as to these previous events. I felt that he was evasive, that he used rationalization, that he used denial and in the case, for example, of discussing an earlier divorce..., did not in a sense fall back onto the issue of substance until we had really gone through a whole series of what I think were rationalizations and evasions. ( Id. at 184-185) It was Dr. Ratner's opinion that the process of rehabilitation has been at least somewhat successful. Cognitively, things have improved, though the ultimate degree of improvement cannot be predicated ... The most troubling matter is the rationalization and denial that still seem to be abundantly present. (Bar. Ex. 56) In September of 1990, Dr. Koltuniak administered three tests to Respondent: WAIS-R, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), and Million Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-II (MCMI-II). On the WAIS-R test, Respondent achieved a Verbal IQ of 100, a Performance IQ of 89, for a resulting Full Scale IQ of 95. Those scores showed an improvement over those obtained seven months earlier, when the scores were 92, 85, and 88 respectively. The functional improvement reflected by those scores was minimal in Dr. Koltuniak's opinion. (Bar Ex. 56 B) The most prominent findings from the MMPI and MCMI-II tests were symptoms of a generalized anxiety disorder and apparently strong propensities for abuse of alcohol and other mood altering substances. His basic personality structure revealed several traits related to an addictive disposition. It was Dr. Koltuniak's opinion that, in terms of Respondent's ability to practice law, he will likely require at least interim supervision with some tasks (e.g. those involving sustained attention, complex information processing, numerical calculations) ( Ibid ) Dr. Koltuniak went on to say that the current personality findings pertain insofar as [Respondent] posing a possible relapse into drug or alcohol abuse. He strongly suggested that another relapse-prevention component be included in [Respondent's] follow-up care, in the form of more intensive group therapy. ( Ibid ) Dr. Koltuniak also suggested at the time of his tests that Respondent be reassessed within four to eight months with a full neuropsychological battery to ascertain any subsequent improvements in his neurological and cognitive functioning. (10/21/91 at 106) It was Dr. Koltuniak's belief that the WAIS-R test is a rather gross measure of neurological functioning. It is much like using a ruler when a micrometer is called for. (Id. at 126) Dr. Koltuniak was unable to say whether the results of Dr. Berg-Cross's WAIS-R tests were a reliable indicator of the state of Respondent's rehabilitation. He stated in a letter to Bar Counsel that Dr. Berg-Cross's conclusions appear to be based on one false statement regarding WAIS-R, a second subjective proposition, and a general lack of knowledge of [Respondent's] previously measured abilities. (Bar Supp. Ex. 3) In the opinion of Dr. Koltuniak, the significant improvement in the IQ scores, in the absence of an intensive cognitive rehabilitation program and/or coaching on materials similar in content of the WAIS-R, an improvement of this magnitude defies conventional explanation. (Ibid) In sum, he found the results obtained by Dr. Berg-Cross to be extremely atypical. (Id. at 118) It was Dr. Koltuniak's opinion that a psychologist is not in a position to make a statement about rehabilitation based on the WAIS-R test alone. (Id. at 216) Dr. Koltuniak made a tentative appointment with Respondent to administer a battery of neuropsychological tests. However, Respondent objected to more extensive testing, indicating that he was only interested in repeating the tests administered in September. ( Id. at 127)