Insufficient Evidence To Establish Mitigation

In a case where a suspended attorney had practiced law in violation of an earlier suspension, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ordered a suspension of two years. The court appended the opinion of the Disciplinary Board explaining why the attorney’s depression and ADHD was not considered as a mitigating factor. The attorney’s expert had opined that “lack of truthfulness and disregard for the truth are not symptoms of depression.” Further, the expert was not aware of the particulars of the misconduct; thus, the evidence did not meet the standards for establishing mitigation based on a medical condition as articulated in the court’s seminal Braun decision.

This strikes me as the correct result as I have never understood court decisions (and they are legion) that find a casual connection between depression and acts of dishonesty. (Mike Frisch)