Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

742 N.E.2d 940

In Re Haith

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided February 28, 2001

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 2001-02-28

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently June 2004

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2001-02-28

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

SHEPARD, Chief Justice,

¶1dissenting.

¶2Several decades of research about healing chemically impaired people suggests that therapy is typically unsuccessful when a dependent person believes he is not. Formal analysis thus coincides with intuition: people who think treatment is unnecessary are unlikely to work very hard at it.

¶3The present case involves a lawyer who is generally well liked and successful. But, he has had three criminal convictions for drunk driving in twelve years. His own therapist, the Commission’s medical expert, and our hearing officer have all concluded that he is alcohol dependent. He insists he is not. He also maintains that the evidence does not reflect adversely on his fitness to serve clients.

¶4The Court says it disagrees on both points, but it sends this message so softly it seems unlikely the respondent will hear it. A short period of actual suspension seems more likely to lead to a successful result.

/742/ne2d/940 · .json · Public domain