Or even an outright deferred adjudication. Frankly if he doesn't get one of those it's because he fucked himself out of one, so if he has to suck up a conviction, even with no time, he's still lost and will have to answer to the bar association on top of that.
A deferred adjudication would annoy me to no end. And I'm skeptical of any serious disciplinary action even if convicted.
On the first:
Nick is 40 damn years old, already a lolyer, literally sworn in and bound by ethical and professional standards, and chose to possess a large (very large) quantity of a serious and illegal drug (and a handful of others) with 5 children in his home, keep an unsecured gun within reach of children, and be sufficiently negligent of his children over a long enough period of time that multiple people were concerned enough to escalate their observations. I've known people terrified that their young adult offenses would preclude bar admission, and what they did was nothing compared to what Nick did.
On the second:
Even the ABA, which generally rejects the notion of moral turpitude as the correct qualifier for lawyer discipline, and vs personal misconduct as an element, rather advocating that the crime bore some relation to/ reflecting on the practice of law, provides in its Model Rules for interim suspension on conviction of a "serious crime."
Rule 19:
C. Definition of "Serious Crime. A "serious crime" is any felony or any lesser crime that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, or any crime a necessary element of which, as determined by the statutory or common law definition of the crime, involves interference with the administration of justice, false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, bribery, extortion, misappropriation, theft, or an attempt, conspiracy or solicitation of another to commit a "serious crime."
But for final discipline - even in states that retain a broad "moral turpitude" standard as a potential bar to admission or for discipline, the personal use of drugs is not necessarily considered a crime of
moral turpitude [note: see Note in link] (and in some places it's defined/ refined to include an element of deception or similar.
The ABA is also against a broad range of disciplinable offenses:
"Many kinds of illegal conduct reflect adversely on fitness to practice law, such as offenses involving fraud and the offense of willful failure to file an income tax return. However, some kinds of offenses carry no such implication. Traditionally, the distinction was drawn in terms of offenses involving "moral turpitude." That concept can be construed to include offenses concerning some matters of personal morality, such as adultery and comparable offenses, that have no specific connection to fitness for the practice of law. Although a lawyer is personally answerable to the entire criminal law, a lawyer should be professionally answerable only for offenses that indicate lack of those characteristics relevant to law practice. Offenses involving violence, dishonesty, breach of trust, or serious interference with the administration of justice are in that category. A pattern of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance when considered separately, can indicate indifference to legal obligation."
However, states take different tacks. He should be glad he's
not in CA. Or
FL or DC.
MN, on the other hand, is very flex-y about it, especially if the action did not actually revolve around harming or taking advantage of clients. And in MN, even if disbarred,
lawyers have a potentially friendly return.
I know a lot of lawyers have substance abuse problems. Will this really suspend him?
Being a substance abuser will not likely hurt him...especially if he does the treatment thing. See link above of one person's analysis of reinstatement. If they are somewhat charitable about an actual disbarred lawyer, they'll have it for people who aren't yet. And MN is the land of rehab.
