 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Reynolds2/10/2005
successful attempts at rehabilitation, nor any witnesses who could testify to such attempts. The only witness other than Petitioner who testified as to Petitioner's post-discipline conduct, Dr. Stejskal, testified that Petitioner appeared to be intoxicated at his evaluation in September 2001. We agree with the Hearing Committee that Petitioner has not met his burden of proof on this Roundtree factor.
4. Present Character
Petitioner is required to prove that: those traits which led to the petitioner's disbarrment no longer exist and, indeed, that petitioner is a changed individual having full appreciation of his mistake and a new determination to adhere to the high standards of integrity and legal competence which this Court requires.
In re Brown, 617 A.2d 194, 197 n.11 (D.C. 1992) (quoting In re Barton, 432 A.2d 1335, 1336 (Md. 1981)). The Court has stressed the obvious importance of this factor, and the need for a petitioner to put on live witnesses familiar with the underlying misconduct who can provide credible evidence of a petitioner's present good character. See In re Tinsley, 668 A.2d 833, 838 (D.C. 1995) (per curiam) (appended Board Report) (testimony of two character witnesses insufficient because not familiar with petitioner's misconduct); Fogel, 679 A.2d at 1056 (same). Petitioner failed to provide any witnesses to testify as to his character.
Further, the Court has recently reiterated that "evasiveness on the reinstatement questionnaire negatively reflects on present character to resume practice. . . ." Patkus, 841 A.2d at 1270 (citing In re Robinson, 705 A.2d 687, 689-90 (D.C. 1998)). Petitioner made at least one false statement in his Petition, see Finding 18, and also engaged in omissions that were misleading, even if not intentional, see Finding 20. As a result, we find Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proving present good character.
5. Present Qualifications and Competence to Practice Law
This factor requires Petitioner to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he is competent to practice law. The Roundtree court emphasized that, " earning in the law is an important factor in every reinstatement case. A lawyer seeking reinstatement after a period of suspension or disbarrment should be prepared to demonstrate that he or she has kept up with current developments in the law." Roundtree, 503 A.2d at 1217 n.11 (D.C. 1985); see also In re Anderson, 741 A.2d 37, 38 (D.C. 1999) (per curiam) (considering "learning in the law required for re-admission").
The Court considers various factors when assessing competence. These include whether petitioner has furthered his legal education through CLE programs, see Roundtree, 503 A.2d at 1218 (considering petitioner's "participation in continuing legal education programs" and "acquisition of computer skills" when granting reinstatement); In re Blondes,732 A.2d 262 (D.C. 1999) (per curiam) (finding that auditing a two-credit CLE course on professional responsibility and ethics demonstrated petitioner's qualifications and competence to practice law); In re Bettis, 644 A.2d 1023, 1030 (D.C. 1994) (finding that petitioner had established competence where he "worked as a law clerk . . . and improved his legal research and writing skills" and witnesses testified to his "particular expertise" in medical malpractice and personal injury ); or kept abreast of developments in the law by reading legal journals and periodicals. See In re Harrison, 511 A.2d 16, 19 (D.C. 1986) (finding petitioner competent where he presented evidence that he had kept up with developments in the law through reading and maintaining professional contacts).
Although Petitioner
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 District of Columbia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|