The Oklahoma Bar Journal August 2023

1) To generally be sympa

A few weeks later, I got a call from our father at work. My brother had not gone to the office and had not been heard from. He lived alone and had always let Mom and Dad know if he planned to leave town. Dad was worried and decided to check his house. When he arrived, he found the house locked up tight. The door had been nailed shut. Checking the kitchen window, my father saw a large, sloppy stack of pipe tobacco on the table with papers lying around on the floor. He instinctively knew something terrible had happened. To spare the rest of us, my father called his best friend, who lived nearby, and with his help, broke into the house to search for my brother. My 66-year-old father then walked into Doug’s bedroom and found his 35-year-old son lying on the floor. He had died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. We later spoke to a psychia trist whom my brother had used during treatment. His alcoholism had been fueled by his bipolar disorder. He used alcohol to self- medicate, but drinking had only worsened his condition and deep ened his periods of depression. In the years that have passed, I have seen other examples of the “functioning alcoholic” and have seen the same pattern play out, although, thankfully, usually not with the same tragic conclu sion. Lawyers and firms often do not know what to do with the functioning addict or alco holic. No one benefits, including the clients. Law firms have generally fol lowed one of three philosophies:

terminal illness. His best friends were a small, close-knit circle of wonderful people who might have known he was drinking too much but, understandably, were protec tive of him. They loved him as we all do our closest friends and did not want to embarrass him or lose him as a friend after a confronta tion. The same, I suppose, could be said of his firm colleagues. As the years passed, his health deteriorated; he developed high blood pressure in his early 30s, a bleeding ulcer, worsening asthma and other medical issues. His medicines and pills amounted to a small traveling pharmacy; he kept them in a tackle box. In the latter stages of his ill ness, our family became more and more suspicious. He slowly with drew, leaving gatherings early or avoiding them altogether. He became financially reckless and borrowed money from our par ents. He gave extravagant gifts to friends and spent large amounts on guns and other expensive hob bies. Our father eventually ques tioned him directly and called some of his close friends; they shared our concerns. We did not contact his firm for fear of put ting his job in jeopardy. The firm never let us know if it had been concerned, but we learned later that a few of his close colleagues were, and a senior partner who had faced the same challenges informally counseled him. They cannot be blamed. It was a differ ent time, and again, he appeared to perform well enough during business hours. Our family eventually set up an intervention, and he reluc tantly agreed to enter treatment. When he came out, we held our breath to see how he would do.

thetic but choose to leave the impacted lawyer alone, maybe months or even years, thinking they will eventually “self- correct,” or someone else closer – maybe a family member – can, should and will intervene; 2) To choose to honor the myth that we lawyers hold especially dear, that we are wholly autono mous independent beings, dignity, we should leave them alone, even if they may be in the process of self-destruction; 3) To fear losing our rela tionship with a profes sional colleague (or we may be in a subordinate position to the troubled lawyer) and don’t want to do anything that puts our relationship or position at risk with that person or the firm. At most, we may discreetly advise a senior or managing lawyer or make informal gestures of concern but force nothing until there is a pattern of irrefutable acts endanger ing others or clients. These philosophies, as natural and humane as they may seem, not only enable the impacted lawyer but also put clients at risk. The correct path is to rigorously follow Rule 5.1 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, as it outlines a proactive approach that is designed to protect clients but will protect you and your practice group in so doing. It and out of respect for the troubled lawyer’s

Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.

32 | AUGUST 2023

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL