requiring proof that alcoholism “substantially affected” the charged misconduct
How later courts described this case
- requiring proof that alcoholism “substantially affected” the charged misconduct
- attorney must show by preponderance of the evidence that alcoholism substantially affected charged misconduct
- six-year delay between conduct and conclusion of disciplinary proceedings was relevant for mitigation of sentence but not for dismissal of misconduct charge
- Board recommends one-year suspension where the only victim was a law firm; the court imposed a one-month suspension
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
STEADMAN, Associate Judge,
dissenting:
I would accept the Board’s findings as to the relation of respondent’s alcoholism to the misconduct, D.C.App.Bar R. XI, § 7(3), and impose a somewhat greater sanction than the majority here.