A Father’s Love And Unauthorized Practice Does Not Preclude Reinstatement

A single act of unauthorized practice did not foreclose favorable action on a petition for reinstatement by a Colorado Hearing Board

In 2007, McGannon was suspended from the practice of law for two years. The suspension was premised on his criminal conviction for a class-four felony of possession of methamphetamine, a schedule II-controlled substance. The hearing board reinstated McGannon, finding that McGannon proved by clear and convincing evidence that he has been rehabilitated and that he is fit to practice law. The hearing board also found in its discretion that McGannon’s failure to comply with all disciplinary rules and orders should not prevent his reinstatement to the practice of law.

The violation was a product of the Petitioner’s desire to help his daughter in a bankruptcy 

Petitioner also addressed his unauthorized practice of law in North Dakota. He characterized his involvement in his daughter’s bankruptcy as a desperate and misguided attempt to protect her by securing the support payments from her divorce, which he believed were exempt from the bankruptcy estate.

…for several reasons we conclude that Petitioner’s North Dakota discipline is not fatal to his reinstatement bid. First, his behavior in North Dakota was uncharacteristic. Petitioner persuasively testified that from the time he was suspended in 2007 until he became involved in his daughter’s bankruptcy in 2021, he scrupulously adhered to constraints on suspended lawyers acting as paralegals, going so far as to educate potential employers about the ethical limits of his assistance. Kohn seemed to corroborate this account, and the People presented no evidence to discount it. Second, the confluence of anomalous personal circumstances—his unmedicated bipolar condition and his frantic attempts to protect his vulnerable daughter—convinces us that his risk of recidivism is quite low. We credit his testimony that he has gained from the North Dakota incident a deep understanding that he needs, and as a practicing lawyer likely always will need, medication to manage his condition. Likewise, we have no doubt that Petitioner intervened on his daughter’s behalf in a highly charged emotional state, genuinely believing that his daughter faced serious financial and legal peril. We have confidence that he has learned a valuable lesson and will not again pursue such a course of action, regardless of the circumstances. Third, we note that Petitioner’s transgression in North Dakota resulted in no harm to the public. And finally, we are swayed by Petitioner’s candor. He was not required to report his North Dakota discipline to the People; that he did so speaks well for his honesty and extenuates his behavior to some extent.

Finding

During the more than fifteen years since Petitioner was suspended, he has effected a fundamental change in his life. He has worked hard to manage his addiction, accepted responsibility for his misconduct, and attempted to make amends in his life. Notwithstanding Dr. Grimmet’s concern about Petitioner’s occasional use of alcohol or marijuana, she confirmed his longstanding diagnosis: sustained remission from a severe substance use disorder. We find this establishes by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner has been rehabilitated.

(Mike Frisch)