Should Drug Rehab Mitigate Disciplinary Sanction?

From the web page of the Missouri Supreme Court is a report on a recently-argued bar discipline case that raises an important sanction issue.

SC95686

In re: Sean E. Bryant
St. Louis
Attorney discipline
Listen to the oral argument: SC95686.mp3
Alan D. Pratzel, the chief disciplinary counsel in Jefferson City, represented his office during arguments; Bryant, of St. Louis, represented himself.

A bank notified the chief disciplinary counsel’s office in June 2015 that the trust account in which St. Louis-area attorney Sean Bryant held client funds was overdrawn. The office’s subsequent investigation revealed that Bryant was addicted to alcohol and prescription drugs and had used some of a client’s money to purchase drugs, after which his brother contributed money to help cover the funds. The chief disciplinary counsel brought disciplinary charges against Bryant. At a February 2016 hearing, Bryant testified that he since has moved in with his brother in Columbia, goes to St. Louis as necessary to work on pending cases, no longer uses drugs, attends Narcotics Anonymous meetings and is remorseful for his actions. The regional disciplinary hearing panel concluded Bryant violated rules of professional responsibility with respect to his management of his trust account, had misappropriated client funds, and knowingly made a false statement of material fact to the disciplinary counsel’s office. The hearing panel found that Bryant had acted intentionally and that his client was harmed. It recommended that Bryant be disbarred. The chief disciplinary counsel now asks this Court to discipline Bryant’s law license.

This case raises two primary questions for the Court – whether the evidence shows Bryant violated the rules of professional responsibility and, if so, what discipline is appropriate.

(Mike Frisch)