The Adderall Difference

Rejected a three-month suspension proposed by a majority of the Disciplinary Review Board, the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered a censure as favored by the board minority for a drug arrest

We write separately to express our disagreement with the five-member Board majority who recommend suspending respondent for three months based on his conviction for 3rd-degree possession of a controlled substance, amphetamine (Adderall pills), a conviction which will be nullified after he successfully completes the 24-month pre-trial intervention program into which he was admitted. Unlike the majority, we believe that respondent should be censured for his unfortunate decision to use Adderall without a prescription…

In short, we believe that this young lawyer with no prior ethics history did everything right to combat his habitual drug habit and promptly face his criminal charge with appropriate, sincere remorse. He has suffered financially and emotionally over the past two years and now, hoping to put all this behind him, has returned to practice in Delaware in a firm that welcomed him back. Suspending him from practice in New Jersey would, we believe, inappropriately and punitively stain his professional record to an unwarranted degree. A censure is sufficient discipline under these circumstances.

The majority was not persuaded by this argument

According to respondent, he is not a drug addict. Moreover, he asserted that Adderall is materially different from other controlled substances, such as cocaine, ecstasy, or crack. According to respondent, nearly a quarter of all college students use Adderall, which also is “widely used in law schools,” with or without a prescription. He claimed that the drug increases “focus and stamina,” thus, “increasing work quality and quantity.” Respondent further asserted that, unlike cocaine, ecstasy, and crack, Adderall is classified as a controlled dangerous substance not because it is intoxicating, but rather because of its potential for abuse.

…respondent’s attempt to persuade us that there is a “meaningful difference” between Adderall and drugs such as cocaine, ecstasy, and crack and, thus, he should receive less than a suspension, is disturbing. Respondent asserted that Adderall is different because (1) it is used by students in institutions of higher learning for the purpose of “increas[ing] focus and stamina . . . work quality and quantity,” and (2) it is non-intoxicating. We reject these hollow arguments. Respondent produced no evidence that he has been diagnosed with any condition that Adderall is prescribed to treat. To the contrary, he admittedly used Adderall “for work purposes,” thus, rendering his use of the drug illegal.

(Mike Frisch)