In the Matter of Kenneth Lawrence Carr (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 756
Facts
Respondent Kenneth Lawrence Carr, admitted in 1976, was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs (Veh. Code §23152(a)). Police found him asleep in his car at an intersection in Los Angeles at 2:15 a.m., engine off. Hours earlier, Carr had been at his girlfriend’s home and planned to sleep there. Upset, he took a prescribed 10mg Valium for stress and later two to four Excedrin PM for a headache. When unexpectedly asked to leave, he drove home unaware the combination might cause drowsiness. He was arrested midway home.
Carr had three prior DUI convictions (1982, 1983, 1984). However, the record showed he did not know the medications would impair his driving, and there was no alcohol use that evening.
Charges and Arguments
The State Bar examiner sought discipline, arguing that Carr’s prior Supreme Court decision (In re Carr, 46 Cal.3d 1089) made DUI convictions professional misconduct per se. The Review Department rejected that claim, holding that misconduct must be established by examining the facts and circumstances of the current conviction, not by prior discipline alone. The record showed Carr took lawful medications without knowing of their effects and drove only after unexpected circumstances caused him to leave his girlfriend’s home.
Sanctions Table
| Charge | Defense / Explanation | Mitigation | Aggravation | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DUI (Veh. Code §23152(a)) | Took prescribed Valium and Excedrin PM; did not know combination would impair driving; drove only after unexpected departure. | No alcohol use; cooperative; credible testimony; full compliance with prior discipline; remorse. | Prior DUI convictions, but unrelated to current intent or knowledge. | No moral turpitude; no misconduct warranting discipline. |
| Failure to recognize risk | No warnings on medications; never experienced side effects; believed safe to drive short distance. | Good faith; candor; lack of harm beyond the criminal offense itself. | None found. | Not culpable; discipline unwarranted. |
| Prior criminal record | Earlier DUIs adjudicated separately; no evidence of ongoing substance abuse or probation violation. | Evidence of rehabilitation and steady law practice. | None established by clear and convincing evidence. | Not considered aggravating; no pattern of abuse shown. |
| Final disposition | Conduct was personal, not related to law practice, and did not harm clients or the public. | Mitigation outweighed any prior record. | None. | Proceeding dismissed; no discipline imposed. |
Holding and Significance
The Review Department held that DUI is not professional misconduct on its face. Professional discipline depends on specific facts showing moral turpitude or other misconduct. Carr’s ingestion of lawful medication without knowledge of impairment, and his personal circumstances, showed no nexus to his duties as an attorney. The court found no moral turpitude, no substance abuse problem, and no misconduct warranting discipline. The proceeding was dismissed entirely.
Tags
Citation: In the Matter of Kenneth Lawrence Carr (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 756.