The Appalachian Trail

The Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board recommends a stayed suspension for an attorney’s two (widely spaced) DUIs

Ms. Stadler has had her own law firm since 1999. She practiced primarily family law and child protection.

Fourteen years prior to the hearing, on Christmas Day, she had drinks with friends and received a DWI. After that event, she totally cut alcohol out of her life and had not had a drink until the evening of August 30, 2014.

On August 30, 2014, she conducted a gun and knife show in Chalmette, Louisiana. The show was a success and that night a lot of the vendors went out to celebrate. That evening she had a few drinks. She realized she should not be driving and pulled over on the shoulder. She was waiting for someone to pick her up and apparently someone had called the police. The police arrived and gave her a DWI.

She described herself as a non-drinker and does not drink. Her level of alcohol was .104. Since August 30, 2014, she has not consumed any alcohol.

There were a number of character witnesses including a judge who has appointed her to several positions

She reports to him and [he] testified that she has earned his trust. He has never seen her drink and felt that she was a health nut.

And from the Bar’s counselling program

After the testimony of Mr. Stockwell, Linda Stadler was called back to resume her testimony. She testified regarding her background and hiking the Appalachian Trail. Additionally, she indicated that since the 2014 DWI incident  she has completely abstained from alcohol. Finally, as a result of the DWI she has forfeited her concealed carry permit for five years as a result of the conviction. In summary, she testified that alcohol is not a part of her life and assured the panel that this event would not happen again.

Sanction

After reviewing the jurisprudence relating to sanctions imposed for misconduct similar to that of Respondent, which discussion is quoted previously herein, and considering the mitigating circumstances specific to Respondent, the committee recommended a one-year suspension, fully deferred. While the committee’s recommended sanction is not unreasonable, the Board finds that a six-month suspension, fully deferred, subject to a two-year probation period, would be a more appropriate sanction under the unique circumstances presented in this particular case. The more lenient suspension period appears warranted in this matter based on Respondent’s good character and reputation as attested by a judge, a client, and an adversary attorney; her active participation in community work in addition to her general practice; her accepting responsibility for her actions in both DWI cases and fully and timely complying with the requirements of probation in both cases; her cooperation with JLAP and compliance with the recommended therapy; no recommendation or requirement by JLAP that she enter into a recovery agreement or be subject to supervision or screening; her genuine remorse, and the fact that Respondent has no prior disciplinary record.

(Mike Frisch)