Those in the field as counselors also have been in the middle of the debate.
One major issue has been: Is total abstinence necessary or can the recovered abuser have a drink now and then?
The New York Times features an alternative approach to AA. For short it may be thought of as "harm reduction."
Instead of imposing the mandate of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) of complete abstinence it allows moderate drinking. Also, its core is not the spirituality of the Twelve Steps. The treatment modality leverages the cognitve behavior approach (changing the thought processes), a form of "interviewing" therapy and medication to alleviate cravings. In Manhattan, the Center for Motivation and Change is one of the facilitlies which provide the treatment. Here is the coverage in NYT.
Actually the two approaches aren't in conflict. With the exception of the matter of whether abusers can drink safely again, anyone with this problem could try out both. AA doesn't oppose additions to what it provides. Those could take the form of just about anything, ranging from psychotherapy to joining a religious group. As with the harm-reduction movement, AA recognizes the abuser likely has underlying emotional problems.
Also, there's no need to "take sides." Just as in business, in addressing an illness which could be catastrophic, it's smart to try whatever and then assess what is producing results. Lawyers whose careers are in trouble owe it to themselves to check out harm reduction if AA hasn't panned out for them.