Filed October 22, 2007
In re Gregory L. Waugh
Commission No. 06 RS 2513
Synopsis of Hearing Board Report and Recommendation
NATURE OF THE CASE: The Petitioner was placed on inactive status in 1996 after it was determined that he was addicted to drugs and alcohol, that he was suffering from poly-substance abuse and a bipolar mental disorder, and that he was incapacitated from continuing to practice law. In 1998, the Petitioner was restored to active practice with conditions. The petitioner violated the conditions of his restoration and was again transferred to inactive status in 1999. A previous petition for restoration was denied in 2003.
RULE AT ISSUE: Rule 759.
RECOMMENDATION: Petitioner's request for restoration to active status be granted, subject to Petitioner's compliance with certain conditions.
DATE OF OPINION: October 22, 2007.
HEARING PANEL: Jack O. Asher, Arden J. Lang, and Carolyn Berning.
PETITIONER'S COUNSEL: Pro se.
ADMINISTRATOR'S COUNSEL: Peter L. Rotskoff.
BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD
ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION
|In the Matter of:
GREGORY L. WAUGH,
|Supreme Court No. M.R. 21116
Commission No. 06 RS 2513
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING BOARD
The hearing on the Petition for Restoration to Active Status was held on August 2, 2007, at the offices of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, Springfield, Illinois, before a Hearing Board Panel consisting of Jack O. Asher, Chair, Arden J. Lang, lawyer member, and Carolyn Berning, public member. The Petitioner appeared at the hearing pro se. The Administrator was represented by Peter L. Rotskoff.
In January 1995, a hearing was held to determine if the Petitioner, Gregory L. Waugh, was incapacitated from continuing to practice law by reason of a mental disorder or addiction to alcohol or intoxicants, and whether he should be transferred to inactive status. The Hearing Board, in a Report filed on June 20, 1995, stated that the Petitioner "suffered from drug and alcohol addictions for many years," and that two doctors diagnosed the Petitioner as "suffering from poly-substance abuse as well as bi-polar mental disorder." The Hearing Board concluded that the Petitioner "is incapacitated from continuing to practice law by reason of mental disorder and addiction to drugs or intoxicants," and recommended that he be placed on inactive status. (In re Waugh, 94 SH 417, Hearing Board Report at 1, 7). On February 13, 1996, the Review Board
concurred in the recommendation of the Hearing Board. (In re Waugh, 94 SH 417, Review Board Report at 1) On May 28, 1996, the Supreme Court approved the Review Board Report, and ordered the Petitioner "transferred to inactive status until further order of Court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 758." (In re Waugh, M.R. 12522).
In February 1997, the Petitioner filed a Petition for Restoration to Active Status, and a hearing was conducted in October 1997. The Hearing Board recommended that the Petitioner be restored to active practice with certain conditions being imposed. (In re Waugh, 97-RS-2521, Hearing Board Report, p. 11-14, December 29, 1997) The Supreme Court approved and confirmed the Hearing Board Report and Recommendation on March 23, 1998. (In re Waugh, M.R. 13507) The conditions of restoration included that the Petitioner abstain from the usage of alcohol, notify the Administrator of his use of alcohol within 48 hours, and comply with all recommendations of his treating mental health professional.
In March 1999, the Administrator requested the Supreme Court to transfer Petitioner to inactive status because he violated conditions of his restoration. Specifically, the Petitioner consumed alcohol and was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol on February 13, 1999; he failed to notify the administrator of his use of alcohol until March 1, 1999; and he failed to attend a scheduled therapy session. On July 22, 1999, the Court transferred the Petitioner to inactive status until further order of the Court.
On June 4, 2001, the Petitioner filed his second Petition for Restoration to Active Status, and a hearing was held in March 2002. The Hearing Board filed a Report on October 9, 2002, and recommended that the Petitioner's request to be restored to active practice be denied. The Hearing Board noted the fact that the Petitioner had violated the conditions of his previous restoration, and further stated:
"While the Petitioner has made an outstanding effort in regard to his alcohol and drug problems, he has not adequately addressed his mental health problems for us to find, with any degree of confidence, that he has overcome his mental disorders and that they are not likely to recur . . . . We believe that, in order for the public and the legal profession to be adequately protected, the Petitioner must obtain whatever treatment he needs before he returns to the practice of law. As suggested by Dr. Henry, a different finding might be made after the Petitioner has received appropriate treatment and ‘has obtained at least a twelve to eighteen month period of mental stability and continued, uninterrupted abstinence'." (In re Waugh, 01 RS 2526, Hearing Board Report at 13-14).
On January 23, 2003, the Supreme Court approved the Hearing Board Report, and denied the Petitioner's second Petition for Restoration to active status. (In re Waugh, M.R. 17567).
In May 2003, the Petitioner filed his third Petition for Restoration. In August 2003, he moved to withdraw the foregoing Petition, and the Supreme Court granted his request to withdraw the Petition on September 19, 2003. (In re Waugh, M.R. 18794).
In July 2004, the Petitioner filed his fourth Petition for Restoration. The Administrator filed a motion to strike the Petition, and the Supreme Court granted the Administrator's motion on September 27, 2004. (In re Waugh, M.R. 19591).
PRESENT PETITION FOR RESTORATION
The Petitioner filed his current Petition for Restoration to Active Status Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 759 on August 15, 2006. The Administrator filed Exceptions and requested the Supreme Court to refer the matter to the Hearing Board. On November 20, 2006, the Court referred this matter to the Hearing Board pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 759.
Pursuant to stipulation, Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 5 and the Administrator's Exhibits 1 through 8 were received into evidence. (Tr. 6-7) The Petitioner testified on his own behalf and presented the deposition testimony of Dr. Stephen Szabo, Ralph Vitola, and Peter Macaluso. The
Administrator presented no witnesses, but did present a March 2007 psychiatric evaluation of the Petitioner, prepared Dr. Stafford Henry.
The Petitioner testified that he graduated from Southern Illinois University Law School. From 1983 to 1987, he worked at a law firm in Edwardsville. He opened his own law office in 1987 and remained in practice until about 1993, when he became unable to practice because of his poly-substance abuse. He noted that in July 1993 his wife left him. The Supreme Court of Illinois transferred him to inactive status in 1996. He is presently 52 years of age. (Tr. 33, 43-44, 47)
He was readmitted to the practice of law, with conditions, in 1998. However, he violated some of the conditions and he was again transferred to inactive status in July 1999. The Petitioner said that conditions imposed upon his readmission were reasonable, but that "I wasn't fit to practice" at that time. He explained that he was still trying to cling to his former wife, he was depressed about losing her, and he medicated himself "with alcohol to get rid of the depression that I had from losing her." He said he was "completely dysfunctional in his personal life" and had a "poor work environment." (Tr. 56-58)
The Petitioner said that he has not used any illegal drugs since 1993, and has not used alcohol since 2000. (Tr. 34)
In 2003, the Petitioner moved to Florida and purchased a condominium located about an hour and a half drive from Tampa and Clearwater. He started attending AA meetings within the first few days he was in Florida. He said he has continued to attend at least one AA meeting a week and has worked the 12-step principles of the program "daily." He went back to work in Florida. He was the assistant manager of the Pasco County Hospice for about three months, and
then worked part time for attorney Elliott Ambrose for a couple of months. The Petitioner also took computer classes and became skilled in the use of Word, Excel and Power Point. (Tr. 18-22, 34-35)
From about May 2004 to March 2006 (Pet. Ex. 2, p. 4), the Petitioner worked for attorney Ralph Vitola. The Petitioner's work for Mr. Vitola consisted primarily of assisting with personal injury files. He explained that he obtained the medical records, the monthly read-out of the amount of Personal Injury Protection remaining, and other reports. He also looked into the causation issues and preexisting conditions. The Petitioner pointed out that he worked "under [Vitola's] supervision." He further stated that he never held himself out to be an attorney and did not receive any remuneration based upon the successful completion of a case. (Tr. 21-26, 39)
The Petitioner then worked as a paralegal for attorney Peter Macaluso. He held this position for about a year, commencing in May 2006. (Pet. Ex. 3, p. 5) The Petitioner assisted Mr. Macaluso with two cases in federal court and about 50 family law files. Under Mr. Macaluso's review, the Petitioner's work included preparing marital settlement agreements and qualified domestic relations orders. (Tr. 27-32)
The Petitioner said he is in the process of transitioning back to Illinois. He is scheduled to commence working as a paralegal for attorney William Mateyka, at the Mateyka & Associates Law office in Granite City, on August 20, 2007. Mr. Mateyka has also offered to hire the Petitioner as an attorney if his license to practice law is restored. The Petitioner indicated an interest in opening his own law office, to offer legal services "at reasonable rates and do some pro bono too." (Tr. 32, 38, 41-42)
The Petitioner was asked what is different now as compared to when he was previously restored to practice and violated the conditions of the restoration. He replied that he has "grown
up;" he is no longer "immature" or "impetuous;" he works his recovery program every day; and he has "an extensive track record of sobriety, work performance, favorable psychiatric evaluations, change of perspective and new found maturation." (Tr. 36-37, 48)
Finally, the Petitioner expressed his willingness to comply with various conditions if he is restored to practice. The conditions include continuing to attend AA meetings and working the 12 steps; abstinence and random drug testing; having a legal mentor; and seeing a psychiatrist for at least two years. He noted that he does not take any medication and that neither Dr. Szabo nor Dr. Henry has recommended any for him. He indicated that if any medication were to be recommended for him, he would like to obtain a second opinion before taking it. (Tr. 45-47, 54-56, 59-61)
Ralph Vitola testified by evidence deposition on May 17, 2007. (Pet. Ex. 2) He is an attorney with an office in Brookville, Florida. His principle areas of practice are personal injury and family law matters. (Pet. Ex. 2, p. 3)
Mr. Vitola employed the Petitioner as a paralegal from May 2004 to March 2006. Vitola said that all of the Petitioner's work was under Vitola's supervision. The Petitioner was one of two or three paralegals who were assigned to personal injury cases. He maintained the file, answered letters, and communicated with the client after Vitola saw the client initially. The Petitioner also prepared demand letters and helped with settlement negotiations. Vitola said that other attorneys and adjusters made positive comments about the work of the Petitioner. (Pet. Ex. 2, p. 4-6, 14-16)
Vitola said that the Petitioner was a punctual employee, and the only time the Petitioner missed work was when he had hernia surgery. The Petitioner left the employment with Vitola because of problems he had with another employee. (Pet. Ex. 2, p. 7, 17-18)
Vitola is a recovering alcoholic, and he attended numerous AA meetings with the Petitioner. He never had any indication that the Petitioner had used alcohol or illegal drugs during the period he was employed by Vitola. Vitola said he had no serious concerns about the Petitioner returning to Illinois, the place where he had his problems with alcohol. Also, Vitola voiced the opinion that he believed the Petitioner was now fit to practice law. (Pet. Ex. 2, p. 8, 12-13, 18-19)
Peter Macaluso testified by evidence deposition on May 16, 2007. (Pet. Ex. 3) He has been an attorney since 1970, and has been a sole practitioner in Tampa, Florida since 1974. His primary areas of practice are family law and criminal defense work. (Pet. Ex. 3, p. 3-4)
The Petitioner worked for Macaluso for about a year, commencing in May 2006, as a "legal assistant." Macaluso said that he supervised the work of the Petitioner and three other legal assistants in his office. The Petitioner generally assisted on family law matters, but worked on one federal case "pretty exclusively for a couple of months." While working for Macaluso, the Petitioner prepared marital settlement agreements, memorandums, motions "of all kinds in family and in civil litigation," qualified domestic relations orders, and jury instructions. He also did research. (Pet. Ex. 3, p. 5-14; Pet. Ex. 5)
Macaluso said the Petitioner's attendance at work was "excellent," and that he never had any reason to think the Petitioner used alcohol or drugs while employed by Macaluso. He
described the Petitioner as diligent, with "top notch" legal skills. Macaluso also voiced the opinion that the Petitioner was fit to practice law. (Pet. Ex. 3, p. 9-10, 12-13, 16-18)
Stephen J. Szabo
Dr. Szabo testified by evidence deposition on May 16, 2007 (Pet. Ex. 1), that he is a licensed physician in Florida and has specialized in psychiatry for about 30 years. His curriculum vita was attached to the deposition. (Pet. Ex. 1, p. 3-5, 25-28)
Dr. Szabo consulted with the Petitioner for the first time on December 12, 2005. They had two subsequent sessions. Dr. Szabo also reviewed various documents, including the March 2007 report of Dr. Stafford Henry, and prepared a written Psychiatric Evaluation of the Petitioner. (Pet. Ex. 1, p. 4-6, 29-32)
The Petitioner told Dr. Szabo that he had not used any illegal drugs since 1993 and had not consumed any alcohol since 2000. Dr. Szabo said he had no reason to doubt the foregoing claims of the Petitioner. Dr. Szabo concluded that the Petitioner's substance abuse was "now in remission." (Pet. Ex. 1, p. 12, 16-17, 29, 31)
Dr. Szabo voiced the opinion that the Petitioner does not have a bipolar disorder. He said "even though [Petitioner] had symptoms consistent with bipolar disorder . . . it was probably substance abuse." (Pet. Ex. 1, p. 13) Dr. Szabo explained that Petitioner's "history of bipolar disorder was not - - did not reach the level of symptomatology where I could go back in time and absolutely diagnose bipolar disorder or any other psychiatric condition except the substance abuse and the resulting misadventures that occurred as a result of [his] substance abuse." (Pet. Ex. 1, p. 12-13) Dr. Szabo further stated that "I think Dr. Henry would agree that under Axis I he would have put bipolar disorder in remission." (Pet. Ex. 1, p. 18)
Dr. Szabo concluded that the Petitioner is "fit to practice law" and shows "no signs of any true psychiatric condition which would make you a danger to your clients through bad judgment or through psychological symptoms that would impair your ability to act in their best interests." (Pet. Ex. 1, p. 15, 31)
Finally, Dr. Szabo recommended that the Petitioner continue to abstain from alcohol and other mood altering substances and continue to go to 12 step or AA meetings "on a weekly basis." When asked if he thought the Petitioner should be in a treatment relationship with a psychiatrist for two years, Dr. Szabo replied "I don't think it's absolutely necessary, but … it's not going to hurt." (Pet. Ex. 1, p. 19-20, 31)
Stafford C. Henry
Dr. Henry's psychiatric evaluation of the Petitioner was received into evidence. (Adm. Ex. 8)
In his report, Dr. Henry stated that he had previously evaluated the Petitioner in September 2001, and that he did this follow-up psychiatric evaluation in March 2007. Dr. Henry's diagnosis of the Petitioner included alcohol dependence in sustained remission and other substance abuse in sustained remission. Dr. Henry voiced the belief that the Petitioner has abstained from alcohol and other substances since 2000. Dr. Henry also diagnosed the Petitioner with bipolar disorder and attention-deficit disorder. However, Dr. Henry added "there is no evidence that symptoms of either of these disorders are currently active." (Adm. Ex. 8, p. 1, 7-8)
Dr. Henry voiced the opinion that the Petitioner is "currently functioning at a high level of occupational and social functioning" and that "there are no mental health issues which would preclude Mr. Waugh from adhering to the Rules of Professional Conduct." (Adm. Ex. 8, p. 8-10)
Finally, Dr. Henry made treatment recommendations for the Petitioner. He recommended that the PETITIONER: (1) continue to remain abstinent from alcohol and all other mood altering substances; (2) attend at least two AA or 12 step meetings each week; (3) secure a sponsor for his recovery program; and (4) maintain a treatment relationship with a psychiatrist for at least two years, with the frequency of the sessions to be determined by the psychiatrist. (Adm. Ex. 8, p. 10)
FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The purpose of a restoration proceeding under Supreme Court Rule 759 is to determine whether an attorney, who has been transferred to inactive status because he or she was incapacitated by reason of mental disorder or addiction, is still incapacitated. The burden is on the Petitioner to prove by clear and convincing evidence that "the mental disorder has been overcome and is not likely to recur;" and that "the Petitioner is a fit person to practice law." In re Hessberger, 96 Ill. 2d 423, 429, 451 N.E.2d 821, 824 (1983); In re Salamone, 04 RS 2538, Hearing Board Report at 5 (Hearing Board Report approved in M.R. 19904, November 22, 2005).
In the case before us, the evidence showed that the Petitioner has had a long and troublesome history of alcohol and drug abuse. At a hearing in 1995, there was evidence showing the Petitioner had used alcohol and drugs since 1971, consumed numerous beers on a daily basis, smoked marijuana, and used pain pills. He admitted having used crack cocaine, heroin, and amphetamines. Two psychiatrists, Dr. Gratzer and Dr. Chand, diagnosed the Petitioner with "poly-substance abuse and a bipolar disorder." It was apparent that the Petitioner's alcohol and drug abuse incapacitated him from practicing law, and he was transferred to inactive status in 1996, as recommended by both the Hearing Board and the
Review Board. In re Waugh, 94 SH 417, Hearing Board Report at 3-8; Review Board Report at 1 (Review Board Report approved in M.R. 12522, May 28, 1996).
A hearing was held in October 1997 on the Petitioner's Petition for Restoration. Thereafter, the Hearing Board recommended that the Petitioner be restored to active status with certain conditions. In reaching its decision, the Hearing Board noted that the evidence showed the Petitioner had abstained from the use of drugs since 1993. Also a psychiatrist, Dr. Jeckel, and a clinical psychologist, Dr. Kohl, indicated that the Petitioner's mental disorder, alcohol dependency, and poly-substance dependence were in remission and that, with conditions, he was not impaired or unable to practice law. The Petitioner was restored to the practice of law with conditions, including that he abstain from the use of alcohol and illegal drugs. In re Waugh, 97 RS 2512, Hearing Board Report at 5-6, 9-11 (Hearing Board Report approved in M.R. 13507, March 23, 1998).
The Petitioner's restoration, however, was short-lived. By March 1999, the Petitioner had used alcohol on various occasions, and the Supreme Court transferred him back to inactive status until further order of the Court on July 22, 1999. (Adm. Ex. 5, p. 3)
The Petitioner's attempt to obtain restoration in 2001 was denied. The Hearing Board noted that the evidence showed the Petitioner had not used alcohol or illegal drugs since January 2000. It was also noted that a psychiatrist, Dr. Henry, diagnosed the Petitioner with a bipolar disorder, while a clinical psychologist, Dr. Cuneo, voiced the opinion that the Petitioner did not have a bipolar disorder. The Hearing Board accepted Dr. Henry's opinions in this regard. The Hearing Board voiced concern about the Petitioner's practicing law without receiving treatment for the bipolar disorder, noting that Dr. Cuneo had acknowledged that if he "had bipolar disorder and was on no medication, he would have a greater chance to relapse." The Hearing Board
concluded that while the "Petitioner has made an outstanding effort in regard to his alcohol and drug problems, he has not adequately addressed his mental problems for us to find…that he has overcome his mental problems and that they are not likely to recur." The Hearing Board then recommended the denial of the Petition for Restoration. In re Waugh, 01 RS 2526, Hearing Board Report at 3-4, 8-9, 12-14 (Hearing Board Report approved in M.R. 17567, January 23, 2003).
At the hearing before us in August 2007, the evidence showed that the Petitioner has made a diligent and, thus far, successful effort at recovery from his poly-substance abuse which previously incapacitated him. For example, he sufficiently established that he has not used cannabis or any unprescribed controlled substance since 1993, and that he has not consumed any alcohol since 2000. (Tr. 34; Pet. Ex. 1, p. 16-17, 29; Pet. Ex. 2, P. 9, 14; Pet. Ex. 3, p. 12, 16; Adm. Ex. 4, p. 11; Adm. Ex. 5, p. 8; Adm. Ex. 8, p. 8) Also, the evidence showed that he has been attending AA meetings continuously, at least once a week, since 2003. (Tr. 34-35, Pet. Ex. 2, p. 8) Both Dr. Henry and Dr. Szabo diagnosed the Petitioner's poly-substance abuse as being in sustained remission. (Adm. Ex. 8, p. 7-8; Pet. Ex. 1, p. 31)
The evidence also showed that the Petitioner was employed as a paralegal and legal assistant by two attorneys in Florida during the period of May 2004 to May 2007. Both attorneys, Mr. Vitola and Mr. Macaluso, indicated that the Petitioner's attendance and his work performance were outstanding. (Pet. Ex. 2, p. 4-7, 13, 15-16; Pet. Ex. 3, p. 5-6, 9, 11, 13, 17-18)
As in the Petitioner's 2002 restoration hearing (In re Waugh, 01 RS 2526, Hearing Board Report at 11-12), there was a disagreement between the psychiatrists as to whether the Petitioner has a bipolar disorder. Dr. Szabo concluded that the Petitioner did not have a bipolar disorder. (Pet. Ex. 1, p. 12-13, 17-18, 31) On the other hand, Dr. Henry diagnosed the Petitioner with a
bipolar disorder. (Adm. Ex. 8, p. 7). We note that two other psychiatrists diagnosed the Petitioner with bipolar disorder in 1995. (Adm. Ex. 2, p. 5-6) However, Dr. Henry, in his current psychiatric evaluation, also found "no evidence that the symptoms of [Petitioner's bipolar disorder] are currently active." Dr. Henry explained that as "patients age and approach their fifties and sixties active psychiatric symptoms frequently became diminutive if not quiescent" and that "this phenomenon is seen in Mr. Waugh's case." (Adm. Ex. 8, p. 8)
Furthermore, Dr. Henry specifically stated that he found "no mental health issues which would preclude [Petitioner] from adhering to the Rules of Professional Conduct." (Adm. Ex. 8, p. 9-10) Similarly, Dr. Szabo opined that the Petitioner is "fit to practice law" and has "no signs of any true psychiatric condition which would make [him] a danger to [his] clients … or impair [his] ability to act in their best interest." (Pet. Ex. 1, p. 15, 31) We found the conclusions of the two psychiatrists to have been thoughtfully made and well explained. In In re Hessberger, 96 Ill.2d 423, 430, 451 N.E.2d 821, 8924 (1983), the Court stated that "uncontradicted testimony" as to whether a petitioner "is mentally capable of resuming the practice of law" from "well-qualified witnesses in the field of psychiatry must be given great respect." Consequently, the evidence in this case sufficiently showed that the Petitioner does not currently have any mental health problem or disorder which would incapacitate him from practicing law.
Both Dr. Henry and Dr. Szabo made treatment recommendations that would tend to minimize the risk of relapse by the Petitioner. Dr. Szabo described a relapse by the Petitioner as the "biggest danger in his life." (Pet. Ex. 1, p. 19) Dr. Henry recommended that the Petitioner abstain from alcohol and all other mood altering substances; attend at least two 12 step or AA meetings each week; secure a sponsor for the 12 step or AA program; and maintain a treatment relationship with a psychiatrist for at least two years, with the frequency of the meetings to be
left to the discretion of the psychiatrist. (Adm. Ex. 8, p. 10) Dr. Szabo generally agreed with the foregoing recommendation. However, Dr. Szabo did not believe the treatment relationship with a psychiatrist was "absolutely necessary," but said "it's not going to hurt."
We further note that the Petitioner was asked what is different now as compared to the time when he failed to comply with the conditions of his restoration in 1998. The Petitioner explained that he has "grown up" and is no longer "an immature, impetuous child." He also explained that he has worked hard on his recovery and has an "extensive track record of sobriety, work performance [and] favorable psychiatric evaluations." (Tr. 35-37, 48) Dr. Henry tended to support the Petitioner's explanations by stating "the most remarkable transformation, however, entails Mr. Waugh's belief system, level of personal responsibility and maturity." (Adm. Ex. 8, p. 8)
Based upon the evidence before us, we find that the Petitioner clearly and convincingly established that he has overcome his poly-substance abuse and mental disorder, and that he is currently fit to practice law. We further find that his problems are not likely to recur if he complies with certain treatment recommendations. Thus, conditions for the Petitioner's restoration are necessary to safeguard the public, maintain the integrity of the profession, and protect the administration of justice from reproach. See In Re Bassett, 97 RS 2558, Hearing Board Report at 8-10, (Hearing Board Report approved in M.R. 14075, February 1, 1999).
Finally, we share the concerns expressed by the Hearing Board in 1997, and we believe the Petitioner should again be cautioned in that regard:
"[Petitioner] should recognize from the testimony and written reports the potential danger of placing himself in high stress situations. He should further recognize that this may be, effectively, his final opportunity to practice law. Thus, we strongly urge the Petitioner to avoid a sole practice or other types of practice which may be very emotional, hectic, and extremely stressful." In re Waugh, 97 RS 2512, Hearing Board Report at 10
We recommend that the Petitioner, Gregory L. Waugh, be restored to the active practice of law, subject to the following conditions pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 759(c):
Petitioner shall abstain from the usage of any alcohol, cannabis, and unprescribed controlled substances;
Petitioner shall secure a sponsor and attend meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous, or other similar program approved by the Administrator, on a regular basis, but not less than two times a week, and submit evidence of attendance to the Administrator;
Petitioner shall, upon the request by the Administrator, submit to random substance testing by a health professional or facility approved by the Administrator within eight hours of receiving notice to submit. The results of the tests shall be reported to the Administrator. The Petitioner shall pay any and all costs of such testing;
Petitioner shall report to the Administrator any use of alcohol, cannabis, or unprescribed controlled substance within 48 hours of such usage;
Petitioner shall participate in a course of treatment with a psychiatrist acceptable to the Administrator, and comply with all treatment recommendations, for a period of two years, or as otherwise determined to be necessary by the psychiatrist. The Administrator shall be kept advised of the attendance deemed warranted by the psychiatrist and any changes therein;
Petitioner shall provide to his treating psychiatrist an appropriate release authorizing the psychiatrist to: (1) disclose to the Administrator on at least a quarterly basis information pertaining to the nature of the Petitioner's compliance with any treatment plan established with respect to Petitioner's condition; (2) promptly report to the Administrator Petitioner's failure to comply with any part of an established treatment plan; and (3) respond to any inquiries by the Administrator regarding Petitioner's mental or emotional state or compliance with any established treatment plan;
For a period of two years after restoration, Petitioner's practice of law shall be supervised by a mentor who is a licensed attorney acceptable to the Administrator. Petitioner shall meet at least once a month with his mentor. Petitioner shall authorize his mentor to disclose to the administrator, on at least a quarterly basis, information about the nature of Petitioner's cooperation with the mentor, Petitioner's attention to client matters, and the mentor's general appraisal of Petitioner's continued fitness to practice law;
Petitioner shall successfully complete the professionalism seminar of the Illinois Professional Responsibility Institute within one year of his restoration;
Petitioner shall notify the Administrator within fourteen (14) days of any change of address or employment;
Petitioner shall comply with the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct and shall timely cooperate with the Administrator in providing information regarding any investigation relating to his conduct;
The Administrator shall report to the Court any noncompliance by the Petitioner with any of the conditions imposed herein.
Date Entered: October 22, 2007
|Jack O. Asher, Chair, with Panel Members Arden J. Lang and Carolyn Berning, concurring.|