Court Opinion

ID: 9742722
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:19:04.385487+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:35.576688
License: Public Domain

STEINMETZ, J.
(concurring). I concur in the per curiam opinion but write separately to state my disagreement with the concurring and dissenting opinions. I would not set conditions for Attorney Wood’s return to *621the practice of law after his suspension as suggested by the concurring opinion, because it would discourage attorneys from coming forward and asserting alcoholism as a mitigating factor or complete defense to the ethics violation charged and I would not find that alcoholism caused the misconduct as suggested by the dissenting opinion, since the referee made no finding as to the causal relation between the misconduct and the alcoholism and this record does not allow this court to make that determination here on review.
Moreover, I would not use this information brought forth by Attorney Wood to set conditions for the practice of law in addition to a suspension or in addition to a stayed suspension. To do the former, as suggested by the concurring opinion, would cause other attorneys who could assert alcoholism as a defense or exonerating condition to hide the true facts and to challenge the claimed ethics violations on other grounds. To do the latter in this case, as suggested by the dissenting opinion, would mislead other attorneys as to the requisite standard of proof of causal relation between the alcoholism and the ethics violation. I believe, depending upon the actual circumstances and the gravity of the violation, where there is proof of alcoholism and a causal relation between that alcoholism and the misconduct, a public reprimand with conditions for the continuing practice may be the appropriate discipline to be ordered. This discipline would not discourage alcoholics from coming forward with evidence and admitting their alcoholic condition and would satisfy the interest of protecting the public and encourage rehabilitation of the offending attorney. Proof of alcoholism and consumption of intoxicants cannot be mitigating factors or a defense without proof of direct causation to the unethical conduct. Mere consumption of intoxicants by an alcoholic is insufficient proof that the alcoholism in fact caused the unethical conduct. There must *622be proof of the causal connection in addition to the attorney’s alcoholism. In this case, because the referee found no causal relation between the claimed alcoholism and the misconduct, I join the majority’s order suspending Attorney Wood from the practice of law for sixty days.
If Attorney Wood as an alcoholic believes his reformation from that condition requires conditions for practice of the law to be set, he can bring a petition for voluntary medical disability while not facing any ethics violation claims.