What makes alcoholism, or other chemical addictions, a mitigating factor in attorney discipline?
What will be an ideal response?
[This is a policy question. The Court was careful to state that alcoholism is not evidence of a
character defect, and discussed the lack of full understanding associated with alcoholism. But addictions are presently not mitigating factors, according to this Court. And, in dicta,
the Court stated that an addiction might be a mitigating circumstance if the magnitude
warranted it.]
You might also like to view...
When responding to the auditor as a result of the audit client's letter of inquiry, how might the attorney limit the response?
a. Limit the response to litigations in process. b. Limit the response to asserted claims. c. Limit the response to matters to which the attorney has given substantive attention in the form of legal consultation or representation. d. Limit the response to items which the attorney believes will result in loss to the client.
Which of the following transactions will not result in the recognition of an expense?
a. Interest accrued on a bank loan b. Declaration and payment of a dividend c. Use of machinery during the period d. Expiration of prepaid insurance
An expenditure to lengthen the useful life of a company vehicle would require a
A) credit to Company Vehicles. B) debit to Repair and Maintenance Expense. C) debit to Depreciation Expense. D) debit to Accumulated Depreciation.
Some courts have recognized a form of employee trade secret misappropriate under the __________ Doctrine, which recognizes that former employees who go to work for a competitor in a similar capacity will eventually disclose trade secrets gained in their former employment
a. Registered Trademark Secret b. Uniform Trade Secret c. Inevitable Disclosure d. Constructive Abandonment