|
NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and
modification. The final version will
appear in the bound volume of the official reports. |
|
|
No.
95-1474-BA
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
|
|
In the Matter of the Bar Admission of STEVEN BRIAN MANION. |
FILED NOV
29, 1995 Marilyn L. Graves Clerk of Supreme Court Madison, WI |
Review of Board of Bar Examiners
decision; Decision affirmed.
PER
CURIAM. This is a review of the decision of the Board of Bar
Examiners (Board) declining to certify that Steven Brian Manion has established
the requisite character and fitness for admission to the Wisconsin bar because
of his alcohol and cocaine addictions and his history of unsuccessful treatment
efforts. Mr. Manion contended that the
Board improperly relied on certain facts to support its decision and failed to
take into account other facts favorable to him. If it does not reverse the Board's decision, Mr. Manion requested
that the court specify the circumstances under which he may reapply for bar
admission and satisfy the character and fitness requirement.
We
determine that the Board's decision declining to certify Mr. Manion for bar
admission is proper, based on the evidence of his addictions and treatment
history. In order to satisfy the
character and fitness requirement for bar admission,[1]
Mr. Manion must establish to the court's satisfaction that his addictions are
being controlled successfully and do not pose a threat to the interests of
those who would retain him to represent them in the legal system or to his
conscientious, trustworthy functioning as an officer of the Wisconsin
courts. Mr. Manion may do so by demonstrating
continued sobriety and abstinence from controlled substances and regular
attendance at treatment programs addressing his alcohol and cocaine addictions
for a period of two years, dating from the addiction assessment performed at
the request of the Board. The record
reflects Mr. Manion's commitment to rehabilitation following his recent
treatment, and we encourage him to pursue that goal and reapply for bar
admission upon satisfaction of the condition we impose.
In
this review, Mr. Manion contested the Board's reliance on and emphasis of
certain facts; the facts themselves are undisputed. Following graduation from Cornell University School of Law in
1975, Mr. Manion was admitted to the New York bar and worked as an associate in
a law firm in Buffalo until August, 1977.
From then until January, 1982, he served as assistant secretary and
counsel of a New York corporation and moved to another corporation as counsel,
where he remained until November, 1990.
His abuse of alcohol and cocaine reached the addictive stage in 1987 and
worsened thereafter. At his request,
his employer transferred him in mid-1990 to the position of general manager of
an enterprise in Green Bay, Wisconsin, where he served until the business
closed in December, 1993.
While
in Green Bay, following his conviction in June, 1991 of driving while
intoxicated, Mr. Manion completed a rehabilitation program. Following that treatment, he relapsed on
cocaine three times during 1991 but remained drug free from the end of that
year through the end of 1993.
When
his job as manager of the Green Bay operation ended following its bankruptcy,
Mr. Manion returned to Buffalo, New York, where he engaged in private law
practice in a two-person firm. He
relapsed on cocaine in late December, 1993 and used cocaine on a few occasions
the following month and then used it regularly during February and March,
1994. Thereafter, he completed a
relapse program in Pennsylvania, after which he returned to Wisconsin and
entered a residential treatment program in Green Bay. While in that program, Mr. Manion applied to write the July, 1994
Wisconsin bar exam, which he passed.
After he left the treatment program in June, 1994 and until early
January, 1995, Mr. Manion had individual therapy sessions with mental health
counselors, who identified his need for continued involvement in recovery
programs.
As
part of the bar admission application process, the Board required Mr. Manion to
undergo an alcohol and drug assessment, which he did November 17, 1994 at the
McBride Center for the Professional in Madison. That assessment diagnosed Mr. Manion as cocaine and alcohol
dependent in remission with an extensive history of numerous efforts at
recovery with relapse. The assessing
physician concluded that Mr. Manion was "only peripherally engaged"
in a recovery program and had chosen to avoid Narcotics Anonymous and Cocaine
Anonymous as a way to isolate himself from the severity of his illness.
The
physician stated that he would not have reservations about Mr. Manion's ability
to engage in the practice of law as long as he continued involvement in a
recovery program. The physician further
recommended that in addition to obtaining a local sponsor and becoming involved
in Narcotics Anonymous, Mr. Manion undergo periodic urine drug screens to
document sobriety.
The
director of the McBride program, at the request of Mr. Manion's counsel,
submitted a letter supporting Mr. Manion's ability to practice law. She noted that he had abstained from mood
altering drugs since March, 1994, strengthened his recovery program
significantly upon entering treatment at the McBride Center, and committed to a
full aftercare program consisting of weekly urine screens and weekly individual
and group therapy. The director stated
her opinion that Mr. Manion is "fully capable of practicing law at this
time and maintaining the highest standards of excellence in his
practice." She added that the
Center would continue to work with him and would notify the Board if any
significant problem arose in order that corrective action could be taken.
Having
considered the foregoing, the Board made findings of fact on which it concluded
that Mr. Manion had not met his burden of establishing the requisite character
and fitness for bar admission. The
facts set forth by the Board as the basis for that conclusion included the
following: Mr. Manion's admitted abuse
of cocaine and alcohol while employed in the practice of law from 1987 to
March, 1994; his return to the abuse of controlled substances while in the
practice of law after periods of abstinence ranging from several months to two
years, notwithstanding hospitalization and treatment during those periods; four
specified treatments he received for his addictions since April, 1991; the need
identified by the assessing physician for his continued involvement in recovery
programs, particularly those addressing substance abuse, which he had avoided
in the past. The Board noted that Mr.
Manion's asserted abstinence from controlled substances since March, 1994 is
for a period shorter than prior periods of abstinence that were followed by his
return to controlled substance abuse requiring hospitalization or other
treatment.
Mr.
Manion did not dispute the Board's findings of fact but objected to what he
considered the implications and suggestions inherent in those findings. He asserted that the findings falsely
suggest that his substance abuse had an adverse impact on his practice of law,
contrary to the report of the New York disciplinary authorities that no
complaints or disciplinary proceedings had been brought against him and the
absence of any evidence that his corporate employment had been affected. He also contended that by implication the
Board determined that his need for continued treatment establishes that he has
not been rehabilitated and that it presumes he will relapse because he has done
so in the past.
None
of those contentions has merit, nor does Mr. Manion's insistence that the Board
has "seemingly" concluded that substance abuse is a moral lapse
rather than a treatable disease.
Further, there is nothing in the record to support Mr. Manion's
attribution of "attitudes, experiences and prejudices" to the Board
as the explanation for its decision to decline certification of his character
and fitness to practice law.
The
Board gave appropriate consideration to Mr. Manion's repeated abuse of alcohol
and cocaine while employed in the legal profession as a private practitioner
and as corporate counsel, as well as his return to substance abuse following
lengthy periods of abstinence, even after hospitalization and treatment. The findings of the Board in those respects
are supported by the record and undisputed.
Notwithstanding the Board's erroneous assertion that its determination
that Mr. Manion failed to establish the character and fitness requirement for
bar admission is a discretionary decision and not a conclusion of law to which
the court would owe no deference, we agree with that determination.
The
Board acknowledged that Mr. Manion has abstained from controlled substances for
over a year but, on the basis of the court's decisions in disciplinary
proceedings involving attorney alcoholism and drug addiction, it concluded that
a longer period of abstinence is required to establish his fitness to be
admitted to the practice of law. The
Board correctly noted that it is for the court, not the Board, to establish
conditions by which an applicant may satisfy the character and fitness
requirement for bar admission.
We
determine that the appropriate condition to impose under the circumstances
presented is Mr. Manion's continuous abstinence from alcohol and controlled
substances for a period of two years, dating from the November 17, 1994
assessment and demonstrated by monthly random drug screens, with the results
furnished to the Board, and his regular attendance at treatment programs
addressing his alcohol and cocaine addictions during that period.
By
the Court.—The decision of the Board of Bar Examiners is
affirmed.
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
Case No.: 95-1474-BA
Complete Title
of Case: In the Matter of the
Bar Admission of:
Stephen Brian Manion.
___________________________________
BAR ADMISSION OF MANION
Opinion Filed: November 29, 1995
Submitted on Briefs: November 2,
1995
Oral Argument:
Source of APPEAL
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
Concurred:
Dissented:
Not Participating:
ATTORNEYS: For Stephen Brian Manion there was a
Petition and brief by Larry I. Hanson, Briony Jean Foy and Jenswold,
Studt, Hanson & Gennrich, Madison.
For
the Board of Bar Examiners the cause was submitted on the brief of Steven E.
Tinker, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was James E.
Doyle, attorney general.
[1] SCR 40.06 provides, in pertinent part: Requirement as to character and fitness
to practice law.
(1) An applicant for bar admission shall
establish good moral character and fitness to practice law. The purpose of this requirement is to limit
admission to those applicants found to have the qualities of character and
fitness needed to assure to a reasonable degree of certainty the integrity and
the competence of services performed for clients and the maintenance of high
standards in the administration of justice.