Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. Daniel J. Millstein, Defendant-Counter-Plaintiff-Appellant

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a chemically dependent lawyer was not entitled to recovery under a disability policy when “he still has the ability to perform legal work, but is only prevented from doing so by the loss of his license.”
• noting that the insured did not seek treatment for his long-term illnesses until his license to practice law was in jeopardy
• refusing to let a lawyer benefit from his unlawful actions based on public policy
• “Millstein does not claim that his 21 condition is such that even if his suspension from the practice of law was lifted, he would still be unable 22 to practice law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).