3.04. Disciplinary Sanctions

The sanctions that are available to the disciplinary body include: informal admonition, private reprimand, public reprimand, suspension, and disbarment.  This is the order from the least to most severe.  State bar associations do not award damages – no matter how egregious the conduct.  If a party wants damages they must pursue other remedies, such as a malpractice claim (Topic 4).  Disciplinary bodies attempt to impose similar sanctions for similar conduct.  However, what you will find as we go through the semester, is that sanctions  that are imposed vary drastically.  Sometimes there is a reason for the disparity.  For example, a court can take prior conduct into account when selecting a sanction, and a lawyer may receive a more severe sanction because of the cumulative record justifies a harsher sanction, not just the latest infraction alone. 

In determining the appropriate sanction, a history of prior ethical violations can result in a sanction more severe than would otherwise be justified, and the lawyer can also put forward mitigating evidence to argue that the penalty should be less than might otherwise be justified.  A difficult issue relates to conduct that occurs related to an addiction.  The question is whether the addiction should be treated as an illness and justify mitigation.

Anthony Abdalla wrongfully took approximately $40,000 from his firm to support his drug habit. Abdalla subsequently entered into a rehab program.  The testimony at the hearing indicated that he has been sober for approximately one year and has a strong support system.  The hearing committee issued a report recommending that the addiction be taken into account as a mitigating factor when determining the sanction to be imposed on Abdalla. The Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board was faced with the issue of whether the addiction should constitute a mitigation to reduce the sanction. Should it?  In re: Adam Anthony Abdalla (March 14, 2017) https://www.ladb.org/DR/Default.aspx?DocID= 8722&TAB=DB

The Disciplinary Board opinion first set out the standards to be considered to determine whether addiction should be considered a mitigating factor.  These are from the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions: (1) there is medical evidence that the lawyer is affected by a chemical dependency or mental disability; (2) the chemical dependency or mental disability caused the misconduct; (3) the lawyer’s recovery from the chemical dependency or mental disability is demonstrated by a meaningful and sustained period of successful rehabilitation; and (4) the recovery arrested the misconduct and recurrence of that misconduct is unlikely.  The Board focused on element two – that the addition caused the misconduct – and found that factually Abdalla began taking money before he was in the throes of the addiction and that there were other reasons that he could have been taking money not related to addiction (i.e. financial issues).  The Board held that there was not strong enough evidence of mitigation to reduce the sanction.  The Board recommended (to the Louisiana Supreme Court) that Abdalla be disbarred.  The Louisiana Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the recommendation over a dissent arguing that the addiction and subsequent actions to rectify the situation (including restitution and rehab) would justify something less than disbarment.[1]

[1] In re Abdalla, 236 So. 3d 1223 (La. 2017).