Opinion ID: 2092803
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Marshall's Kersey defense.

Text: Before the Hearing Committee and subsequently before the Board and before this court, Mr. Marshall admitted his misconduct, but he presented a Kersey defense in mitigation. This defense was based on our holding in Kersey that under some circumstances, alcoholism may be a mitigating factor to be considered in determining the appropriate discipline to be meted out against an attorney who has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. 520 A.2d at 326. We stated in Kersey that, in order to be eligible for mitigation, the respondent must show 1. that he was an alcoholic at the time of his misconduct; 2. that his alcoholism was the cause of his misconduct and substantially affected it; and 3. that there was significant evidence of rehabilitation. Id. at 325-27. In the present case, Bar Counsel did not contest Marshall's claim that he was an addict at the relevant times. Bar Counsel maintained, however, that Marshall had failed in his proof of the second and third prongs. In support of his Kersey claim, Marshall testified that his conduct was attributable pretty much to my addiction. I had gone on a binge. He acknowledged that he provided fabricated checks to Bar Counsel in essence to cover up my misdealings or my misdeeds. In further support of his Kersey claim, Marshall called Dr. Thomas Goldman, a psychiatrist, and Dr. Nuha Abudabbeh, a clinical psychologist, as expert witnesses. It was the opinion of each of these experts that Marshall's addiction substantially affected his misconduct. Dr. Goldman testified at some length, and at times somewhat equivocally, on the issue of causation, and he was less than categorical with respect to any significant connection between Marshall's addiction and his fabrication of checks to cover up his misappropriation. Dr. Abudabbeh's opinion, though unequivocal, was quite conclusory.