I must
respectfully dissent from the decision of my colleagues to reduce the sanctions
recommended by the Lawyer Disciplinary Board in this matter. While the record
demonstrates mitigating factors in Mr. Dues' actions, I cannot overlook the impact
of Mr. Dues' violations to his clients and, therefore, to the justice system.
In the
instant matter, Mr. Dues admits to committing thirty-nine violations of the Rules
of Professional Conduct. Although Mr. Dues suffered from physical and mental
health problems, these violations caused serious harm to his clients. By impairing
his client's legal rights, including in some cases missing filing deadlines,
Mr. Dues violated a sacred trust between an attorney and client. Viewing the
entire record, I believe the sanctions recommended by the Lawyer Disciplinary
Board were appropriate and fair to adequately address the seriousness of Mr.
Dues' conduct, in light of his demonstrated mental illness, and
to attempt to restore his former clients' confidence in the legal profession. (See
footnote 1)
Depression
is an insidious and terrible disease historically stigmatized by our society.
It hurts not only the person inflicted, but all those around that person. We
must do everything possible to encourage persons suffering from this disease
to seek and receive the help that they need. However, our compassion for the
person inflicted should not include condoning harm to innocent persons arising
from a failure or refusal to get appropriate help for a mental illness, such
as depression. By enforcing appropriate consequences for acts and/or omissions
which harm their clients, we encourage attorneys to seek help at the earliest
possible moment. (See footnote
2)
I am
particularly disturbed by the majority's rejection of the eighteen month recommended
suspension and its decision to permit Mr. Dues to serve as a mental hygiene
commissioner for a period of twenty-four months under the supervision of the
chief judge of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. A mental hygiene commissioner,
like an attorney, is in a position of public trust. Simply because Mr. Dues
has, to date, not experienced problems when functioning as a mental hygiene
commissioner does not mean problems will not arise before his severe depression
is adequately controlled. I believe the recommended eighteen month suspension
was appropriate and would have given Mr. Dues time to recover without the stress
of either private practice or the duties of a mental hygiene commissioner.
Likewise,
the majority's decision to allow Mr. Dues to return to the practice of law unsupervised
after the twenty-four month period so long as he has documentation that his severe
depression is under control is cause for concern. I agree with the recommendation
of the Lawyer Disciplinary Board that any return to the practice of law should
be supervised for a period of at least two years. Depression can be a recurrent
illness and stress is often a trigger for relapse. Under the majority's approach,
there is no safety net to protect Mr. Dues' clients should the stress of a return
to the practice of law trigger a relapse of severe depression. The Lawyer Disciplinary
Board's recommendation best protects the judicial system. I truly hope the Mr.
Dues is able to recover from his physical and mental health problems. However,
I find the absence of such safety net to be unacceptable.
For these
reasons, I respectfully dissent and would adopt the recommendations
of the Lawyer Disciplinary Board.