Possessing Marijuana Gets You Sanctioned
Professional Conduct
January 12, 2012
In August 2009, a deputy prosecuting attorney was arrested for possessing marijuana and entered a diversion program, thereby admitting the offense. A disciplinary action was brought against him and he entered a conditional agreement with disciplinary counsel, which recommended a public reprimand. The Court did not like this recommendation, but went along with it anyway.
This demonstrates two things: (1) the Court really doesn't like lawyers who use marijuana and (2) it pays to settle with disciplinary counsel.
In August 2009, a deputy prosecuting attorney was arrested for possessing marijuana and entered a diversion program, thereby admitting the offense. A disciplinary action was brought against him and he entered a conditional agreement with disciplinary counsel, which recommended a public reprimand. The Court did not like this recommendation, but went along with it anyway.
A lawyer's possession of marijuana involves a nexus with the chain of distribution and trafficking of illegal drugs. The impact of that association affects adversely the public's perception of the lawyer's fitness to be an officer of the court. See Matter of McNeil, 704 N.E.2d 114 (Ind. 1998). And "[w]hen the law is broken by one whose job it is to enforce the law, the public rightly questions whether the judicial system is worthy of respect." Matter of McFadden, 729 N.E.2d 137, 138 (Ind. 2000).
The parties propose the appropriate discipline for Respondent's illegal conduct is a public reprimand. The discipline the Court would impose for Respondent's misconduct would likely be more severe had this matter been submitted without an agreement. However, in light of the Court's desire to foster agreed resolutions of lawyer disciplinary cases and the mitigating factors in this case, the Court now APPROVES and ORDERS the agreed discipline.
The parties propose the appropriate discipline for Respondent's illegal conduct is a public reprimand. The discipline the Court would impose for Respondent's misconduct would likely be more severe had this matter been submitted without an agreement. However, in light of the Court's desire to foster agreed resolutions of lawyer disciplinary cases and the mitigating factors in this case, the Court now APPROVES and ORDERS the agreed discipline.
This demonstrates two things: (1) the Court really doesn't like lawyers who use marijuana and (2) it pays to settle with disciplinary counsel.
Trackback Address :: http://www.indianalawupdate.com/trackback/311
