Court Opinion

ID: 9678217
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:14:33.397248+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:02.734226
License: Public Domain

LOUIS J. CECI, J.
(dissenting). I dissent from the majority opinion insofar as it follows the referee’s error in referring to Mr. Hankel’s misconduct as being related to a medical condition.
The imaginative “medical condition” claimed by Mr. Hankel should not be recognized nor accepted by this *398court as a ground for the negligence of this lawyer throughout these proceedings.
Neglect of legal matters to the degree evidenced here, after previous discipline, has now produced a new and imaginative “mental illness.” According to the referee’s recommendation, Mr. Hankel is suffering from a “significant mental illness which has materialized itself into a work inhibition syndrome.”
I suggest that many lawyers and judges with significant work loads may have occasional periods during which they suffer from a “work inhibition syndrome.” I further make bold to suggest that this usually occurs right after the first severe winter snowstorm or on a spring Thursday afternoon during the golfing season. However, they recognize their professional responsibilities to their clients and the public and complete their tasks.
The majority opinion is unnecessarily complicating the disciplinary process by adopting this new form of mental illness. Recoveries will undoubtedly be remarkably swift. I, therefore, dissent.