“Learned Helplessness” A Mitigating Factor

Last month, the District of Columbia ordered identical reciprocal discipline of a three-month suspension and probation in a matter from Massachusetts.

The Massachusetts proceeding raised the issue of the impact of the attorney’s previously undiagnosed “learned helplessness.”

Associate Justice Lenk rejected Bar counsel’s contention regarding the impact of the attorney’s mental health issues for sanction purposes. Bar counsel argued that the Board of Bar Overseers had

erred in considering the respondent’s mental illness in mitigation, as the respondent is only in the beginning stages of treatment. Bar counsel appears to challenge any view of a respondent’s mental illness as an appropriate factor in mitigation unless the .. respondent can show, essentially, that the course of treatment is at an end and the treatment has been successful.

The court rejected that view.

The imposition of a period of immediate suspension serves to protect he public perception of the integrity of the courts and the bar, even though imposition of a sanction where the misconduct arises from a disability is unlikely to have a deterrent effect on other lawyers. The relatively short period of immediate suspension incorporates the board’s determination that the misconduct occurred as a result of the respondent’s mental illness, and is unlikely to recur with treatment; thus the cause of the misconduct is a substantial factor in mitigation.

(Mike Frisch)