Reinstatement Opposed For Conditionally-Admitted Attorney Revoked For Rock Concert Cocaine Use
The Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board recommends against reinstatement of an attorney whose conditional admission had been revoked
Petitioner was conditionally admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana on June 17, 2010. His conditional admission followed an investigation conducted by the Louisiana Supreme Court Committee on Bar Admissions which revealed Petitioner’s criminal arrest history including a D.W.I. charge in 2001, possession of marijuana in February 2002, and public drunkenness in September 2006. On April 7, 2010, the Court conditionally admitted Petitioner for a period of one year from the date of admission. During the period of conditional admission, Petitioner was to be monitored for abstinence by the Lawyers Assistance Program (“LAP” or “JLAP”).
Petitioner was sworn as a member of the bar on June 17, 2010. In May of 2011, he attended a concert on the coast of Alabama, at which time he consumed alcohol and cocaine, mistakenly believing that he had completed his obligations under the Court’s earlier order. Drug testing confirmed Petitioner’s use of alcohol and cocaine. The ODC filed a motion to revoke the Petitioner’s conditional admission. In a response filed with the Court, Petitioner initially denied that he had used cocaine but later admitted that he had done so.
He was interim suspended and later had admission revoked.
The board disagreed with the hearing committee that he should be reinstated
The facts show that Petitioner completed the six-week residential treatment program on March 21, 2012. Despite the fact that the Court had ordered him to comply with the Bradford recommendation and enter a five-year contract with LAP at that point, he chose not to do so. When asked why, he stated that it was due to a combination of many things. He testified that he was unhappy with the system in place, and that that he did not believe he needed treatment or constant monitoring. He believed his conduct was a result of misjudgment and poor decision making, not alcohol or drug dependency and that he did not need to follow a 12-Step program. He also testified that he had suffered financially, had lost a high-paying job, and he felt like he needed to take a step back and regroup on his own.11 In response to further questioning, he admitted that he chose to disregard the recommendations of the medical professionals at Bradford as to what they thought was the best course of treatment, and that he did not follow the order of the Supreme Court…
In its November 16, 2011 order revoking his conditional admission, the Court provided him with a path to regain his license. Petitioner made a choice not to comply with the Court’s order, therefore, he has not yet established by clear and convincing evidence that he has met the readmission criteria. Six years after the issuance of the order, he has seemingly tried all possible avenues to avoid complying with the Court’s order. It does not escape notice that had he timely complied, he could have completed his obligations under a five-year contract earlier this year.
(Mike Frisch)