Rule 8.3 refers to the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct. I believe you are wrong in your interpretation of that rule as requiring an attorney to report addiction in another attorney. Again, if that’s a requirement, there are no lawyers who haven’t violated that requirement.
"V. A NOTE ON ATTORNEY ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS
There are also ethical implications when lawyers become aware that other attorneys may be under the influence of
drugs or alcohol or subject to mental impairments. Neither the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct nor the
New York Rules of Professional Conduct contain a rule that directly addresses substance abuse by attorneys.
However, both sets of rules prohibit lawyers from representing clients when their ability to represent the client is
“impair[ed]” by a “physical or mental condition.”47 Such circumstances may trigger a duty to report the attorney’s
conduct, 48 or advise clients that the attorney is not able to continue with the representation.49 Under the applicable
rules and ethics opinions, impaired lawyers have the same obligations as other lawyers—mental impairment does not
lessen a lawyer’s obligation to provide clients with competent representation. Therefore, law firms navigating these
issues should be aware of the ethical consequences, and potential obligations, that may arise when an attorney is
under the influence of drugs or alcohol or has a mental health impairment."
Footnote 48 goes to the same page I sent you before. When I was in college (BA in Legal Studies) we were also taught the rules thru multiple Ethics classes. The lawyers only has to be reported if the drug use impairs their ability to do their job. But this includes both the inability to actually provide adequate and effective assistance AND having a second person on any accounts that are held in trust for them, in order to ensure they don't....imagine this....misappropriated funds.
I have no doubt in my mind that many, many, many lawyers violate this. States and territories have their own laws as well, and the ones in DC (I believe, I'm on my phone and need glasses) goes so far as to say that the lawyer who didn't report could be in trouble if the knew or SHOULD have known, so people can't say they didn't know and didn't want to know.
Also, the ADA does not cover the confidentiality of a current drug user, only previous users.
This is a .pdf. if it doesn't post correctly, let me know. I can also try to find more
https://www.proskauer.com/uploads/a...4QFnoECAYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2bFacfO-qcusvTGgnErTBZ