The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, finding that his sobriety remains his first priority in his life and that he is cognizant that a relapse could signify the loss of hard-won achievements, unanimously recommended that Brian S. Quinn be reinstated to the practice of law. 1595 Disciplinary Docket, No. 3 (August 7, 2015).
At Quinn’s reinstatement hearing before a hearing committee, he presented clear and convincing evidence of his extensive rehabilitative efforts to address his addiction to alcohol and drugs through treatment, participation in 12 step recovery meetings, involvement with Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers (LCL) and service to others.
By Order dated June 21, 2012 the Supreme Court suspended Quinn on consent for five (5) years retroactive to May 17, 2010. Quinn’s suspension resulted from his incarceration following three (3) convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, a summary conviction for disorderly conduct, and the conversion of $34,449.54 from his IOLTA account, which belonged to the beneficiaries of an estate he was administering. The misconduct occurred during a time in Quinn’s life when he as addicted to alcohol and drugs. He has fully acknowledged his misconduct and is extremely remorseful.
Quinn sought the assistance of a fellow attorney and friend who contacted LCL and thereafter a long term for his ongoing treatment and rehabilitation was developed. Quinn completed 28 days of inpatient treatment followed by daily attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA) meetings and participation in intensive outpatient treatment. The result has been that Quinn has maintained continuous sobriety since 2008 without relapse. Quinn’s commitment to his recovery was described as unparalleled and resulted in the rebuilding of important relationships in his life. Quinn’s transformation as a result of his recovery has resulted in ongoing participation LCL activities as well as part time employment in the addiction and behavioral health field while also working for practicing attorneys conducting legally research.
In considering Quinn’s reinstatement petition, the Court noted that the object of concern is not solely the transgressions which gave rise to the lawyer’s suspension, but rather the nature and extent of the rehabilitative efforts made since the time the sanction was imposed and the degree of success achieved in the rehabilitative process. Quinn’s tireless and unwavering in his efforts to address his addiction and regain control of his life, as well as the evidence of his significant progress, starting from the time he sought assistance from LCL in 2008 and continuing to the time of the reinstatement hearing. Quinn has actively participated in inpatient and outpatient treatment, and has displayed consistent and continued attendance at and involvement in AA and LCL. Quinn testified about his transformation from addict to recovering addict and how he has transitioned to a place where he is able to assist other addicts. The Court further found that he accepted full responsibility for his misconduct and has demonstrated sincere remorse and regret and that his witnesses wholeheartedly endorsed his reinstatement and Office of Disciplinary Counsel did not oppose reinstatement.
Quinn’s tremendously hard work in overcoming his addictions, his commitment to his recovery, his work with LCL and acceptance of responsibility for his misconduct are to be admired and demonstrate clearly how an attorney may restore his life and professional competence and regain his ability to practice law in the Commonwealth.