In the Matter of Patrick J. Roberts , 2004 Ind. LEXIS 531 ( 2004 )

|Attorney for Respondent |Attorney for the Indiana Supreme Court|
|Patrick J. Roberts, pro se. |Disciplinary Commission |
| |Donald R. Lundberg, Executive |
| |Secretary |
| |Seth T. Pruden, Staff Attorney |
| |Indianapolis, Indiana |
| | |
| | |
In the
Indiana Supreme Court
_________________________________
No. 52S00-0310-DI-439
In The Matter Of
Patrick J. Roberts,
Respondent.
________________________________
Disciplinary Action
________________________________
June 9, 2004
Per Curiam.
Since 1996, the respondent, attorney Patrick J. Roberts, has twice
been convicted of alcohol-related driving offenses. Today we accept an
agreed resolution of attorney disciplinary charges emanating from those
convictions. The agreement calls for the respondent’s public admonishment
in light of the fact that the respondent voluntarily sought out and
completed treatment for his alcohol abuse and because he continues to
abstain from alcohol use.
This case began with the Commission’s filing of a Verified Complaint
for Disciplinary Action alleging that the respondent’s two convictions
violated Ind.Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(b), which provides that it is
professional misconduct for a lawyer to commit a criminal act that reflects
adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer
in other respects.
Thereafter, the parties tendered for this Court’s approval a Statement of
Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline, pursuant to
Ind.Admission and Discipline Rule 23(11)(c), therein stipulating to the
respondent’s actions and agreeing that a public reprimand is a sufficient
sanction for his actions.
The respondent’s admission to this state’s bar in 1969 confers upon
this Court disciplinary jurisdiction over this matter.
The Commission and the respondent stipulate that on August 29, 2002,
in the Cass Superior Court, the respondent pleaded guilty to operating a
motor vehicle while intoxicated. On February 20, 1996, in the Miami
Superior Court, the respondent pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle
with a blood alcohol level of .1% or more.
In Matter of Haith, 742 N.E.2d 940 (Ind. 2001), we concluded that a
pattern of alcohol-related driving offenses may violate Prof.Cond.R.
8.4(b):
Lawyers are professionally bound to comply with and uphold the law.
Ind.Admission and Discipline Rule 22. A pattern of repeated offenses,
even ones of minor significance when considered separately, can
indicate an indifference to legal obligation. Comment to Prof.Cond.R.
8.4. A lawyer's multiple convictions for OWI or similar offenses may
indicate a willingness to ignore the law and may damage the public's
perception of the legal profession. [Matter of] Welling, 715 N.E.2d at
378. Such conduct also implicates a lawyer's fitness as one who can
be trusted to keep his client's secrets, give effective legal advice,
and fulfill his obligations to the courts. [Matter of] Martenet, 674
N.E.2d at 550. Thus, a lawyer's commission of OWI and similar
offenses, even standing alone with no attendant misconduct, has been
found to violate Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b). Matter of Jones, 727 N.E.2d 711(Ind.2000) (three OWI convictions and a fourth conviction withheld on
terms of probation).
Haith at 942-943. We find that, in the present case, the respondent’s
convictions of OWI and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level
of at least .1% violate Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b).
In support of the agreed discipline, a public reprimand, the parties
cite several factors which they contend mitigate the severity of the
respondent’s actions. They agree that he self-reported each conviction to
the Commission. Prior to his 2002 conviction, the respondent voluntarily
contacted the executive director of the Indiana Supreme Court Judges and
Lawyers Assistance Program (JLAP), which referred him to an alcohol and
substance abuse counselor. Both JLAP and the counselor’s assessments
indicated that the respondent did not have an alcohol dependency, but that
instead he used alcohol inappropriately. The respondent has successfully
completed his treatments with the counselor, which included abstinence from
alcohol, education and therapeutic counseling sessions. The respondent
continues his program of abstinence and counseling.
In attorney discipline cases involving multiple incidents of driving
while intoxicated, lawyers have been placed on probation for a period of
time in order to compel alcohol treatment as a condition of practicing law.
See, e.g. Matter of Martenet, 674 N.E.2d 549 (Ind. 1996) (6 month
suspension from the practice of law stayed to 12 months of probation for
three convictions of OWI); Matter of Jones, 727 N.E.2d 711 (Ind. 2000) (6
month suspension, stayed to probation on condition that attorney undergo
successful treatment for and monitoring of his alcohol dependency, for four
convictions of OWI over 15 years); Matter of Haith, 742 N.E.2d 940 (Ind.
2001) (12 month suspension stayed to two years of probation involving
alcohol dependency aftercare provisions for three convictions of OWI or
similar offenses, two of which involved personal injury).[1] In these
three cases, the lawyers were diagnosed as having alcohol dependency, had
at least three convictions for drunk driving, and had not undergone a
period of abstinence sufficient to demonstrate successful completion of
treatment.
The present case may be distinguished. The respondent has not been
diagnosed as alcohol dependant, but instead as one who abuses alcohol.
Unlike the lawyers in the prior matters, the respondent has demonstrated
completion of a voluntary course of treatment for alcohol abuse,
voluntarily continues with his course of treatment, and has abstained from
the use of alcohol for some 21 months. In addition, the respondent’s two
misdemeanor convictions were the result of incidents that were separated by
a period of approximately nine years. Accordingly, we agree with the
parties that a public reprimand is appropriate for the misconduct in this
case.
It is, therefore, ordered that the respondent, Patrick J. Roberts, is
hereby reprimanded and admonished for his misconduct in this case.
The Clerk of this Court is directed to provide notice of this order
in accordance with Admis.Disc.R. 23(3)(d), to the hearing officer, and to
the clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit,
the clerk of each of the United States District Courts in this state, and
the clerks of the United States Bankruptcy Courts in this state.
Costs of this proceeding are assessed against the respondents.
-----------------------
[1] Where a lawyer with law enforcement responsibilities is involved in
even a single instance of driving while intoxicated (as opposed to multiple
instances) disciplinary action is warranted. See, e.g., Matter of Oliver,
493 N.E.2d 1237 (Ind. 1986) (public reprimand for lawyer convicted of OWI
while appointed as a special prosecutor); Matter of Musser, 517 N.E.2d 395(1988) (public reprimand for deputy prosecutor convicted of OWI).