In the Matter of Kenneth Lawrence Carr (Review Dept. 1992) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 108
Facts
Kenneth Lawrence Carr, admitted to the bar in 1976, had a long history of alcohol and drug-related offenses. Between 1984 and 1986 he was arrested multiple times for driving offenses and drug use involving phencyclidine (PCP) and alcohol. His record included prior felony and misdemeanor convictions for PCP-related crimes and driving under the influence. Carr’s earlier discipline included suspensions for possession of PCP and for failing to cooperate with a State Bar probation monitor.
In November 1984, Carr was stopped by the California Highway Patrol for erratic driving on a Los Angeles freeway. Officers found him unsteady, slurring his speech, and smelling strongly of chemicals consistent with PCP. Although breath tests showed only 0.03 percent blood alcohol, he was charged with multiple Vehicle Code violations, including driving with a suspended license. In April 1986, despite a judge’s direct warning not to drive, Carr left the courthouse and was immediately arrested by a bailiff for driving away without a valid license. Separately, he was convicted of being under the influence of PCP in 1986.
The Review Department consolidated these matters and examined Carr’s broader criminal and disciplinary history, finding that although no moral turpitude was proven, his conduct reflected persistent disregard of court orders and substance-abuse-related misconduct impacting his fitness to practice law.
Findings and Discussion
The Review Department determined that Carr’s driving and drug-related convictions did not involve moral turpitude under Business & Professions Code § 6106, since no client harm or fraudulent intent was established. However, the court concluded that his repeated violations of criminal probation orders and continued unlawful conduct constituted “other misconduct warranting discipline.”
The opinion cited In re Kelley (1990) 52 Cal.3d 487, emphasizing that even private substance-abuse offenses can justify discipline when they demonstrate disobedience of court orders and reflect on an attorney’s integrity. Carr’s multiple DUI and PCP incidents, together with his violation of probation conditions requiring compliance with all laws, demonstrated a pattern of impaired judgment incompatible with the duties of an officer of the court.
In mitigation, Carr had completed a 120-day residential treatment program, participated regularly in AA, and maintained sobriety since 1986. The court noted an absence of client harm and found his rehabilitation efforts credible but incomplete. Aggravating factors included multiple prior disciplines, repeated criminal conduct, and prolonged substance abuse.
Sanctions Table
| Charge | Findings | Mitigation | Aggravation | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Driving with suspended or revoked license | Convicted of several Vehicle Code violations; failed to obey prior court orders. | Rehabilitation efforts; no client harm. | Prior discipline; repeat offenses; disregard of probation. | Other misconduct warranting discipline; no moral turpitude. |
| Being under the influence of PCP | Found guilty of use of a controlled substance while on probation. | Participation in treatment; abstinence since 1986. | Multiple substance-related convictions; relapse during probation. | Violation of § 6103 and § 6106; misconduct affecting fitness to practice. |
| Violation of criminal probation | Failed to obey laws as required by probation in prior DUI and PCP cases. | Evidence of later compliance and sobriety. | Pattern of disobedience of court orders. | Established nexus between misconduct and law practice. |
| Prior record of discipline | 1984 and 1988 suspensions for PCP possession and DUI convictions. | Some rehabilitation shown. | Three prior disciplinary actions; long-term substance abuse. | Aggravating factor leading to increased probation conditions. |
| Final Discipline | Convictions and misconduct related to substance abuse. | Rehabilitation progress acknowledged. | Extensive prior record; multiple offenses. | Two-year suspension (stayed), six-month actual suspension, two years probation with substance-abuse monitoring. |
Holding and Significance
The Review Department held that drug- and alcohol-related offenses, even without client harm, warrant discipline when they reflect disregard for court orders and the law. Carr’s case underscores that attorneys must demonstrate rehabilitation and fitness before reinstatement when substance abuse contributes to criminal conduct. The decision reaffirmed that the State Bar may discipline lawyers for off-duty criminal acts that reveal unfitness to practice law.
Tags
Citation: In the Matter of Kenneth Lawrence Carr (Review Dept. 1992) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 108.