Court Opinion

ID: 9678216
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:14:33.391853+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:02.733529
License: Public Domain

STEINMETZ, J.
(concurring). I find the so-called “significant mental illness which has materialized itself into a work inhibition syndrome,” advanced by the attorney’s experts, to be so vague, uncertain and so self-serving that it is not worthy of consideration. I would *397require that this condition be established as a well-recognized mental illness resulting in a similar state of incapacity in others before recognizing it as anything other than a conjured excuse for Attorney Hankel to not properly, diligently represent his clients.
The psychiatrist, in his report which is an exhibit, stated: “His clinical presentation at this time appears to be related more to a simple work inhibition syndrome than a severe clinical depression.” The doctor noted that the attorney’s major problem is trying to deal with a bad habit of procrastination. This statement does not support a conclusion of mental illness and was not stated to any psychiatric certainty. In testimony, the doctor stated: “I think that the work inhibition is very strongly related to a product of his depression.” The doctor did testify that Attorney Hankel was depressed but his condition was not a severe clinical depression. The mental illness itself is never identified, only that it has resulted in depression. The depression was stated to be “clinical depression” but not “psychotic depression” and not severe clinical depression.
The psychologist stated there was a “moderate level of depression [mild] with underlying paranoid trends.”
Neither of the expert’s opinions rise to the level of acceptable considerations for explaining work delay by Attorney Hankel, in my opinion.
I do concur, however, in the discipline since it appears in the circumstances of this attorney’s misconduct to be the better manner of protecting the public from any potential future misconduct.