Title: In Re Reed

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

584 A.2d 1207 (1990)
In re Paul R. REED, Petitioner.

Supreme Court of Delaware.
Submitted: November 14, 1990.
Decided: December 18, 1990.
James C. Reed, Georgetown, and John O. Olsen (argued) of Braden & Olsen, Lake Geneva, Wis., for petitioner.
Charles Slanina (argued), Disciplinary Counsel, and David C. Johnson-Glebe, Asst. Disciplinary Counsel, Wilmington.
Before CHRISTIE, C.J., MOORE and WALSH, JJ.
PER CURIAM:
On May 4, 1981, the Delaware Supreme Court ordered that the name of the petitioner, Paul R. Reed, be "stricken from the roll of attorneys" because of his history of various violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. See Matter of Reed, Del.Supr., 429 A.2d 987 (1981). Petitioner has filed an application to be reinstated as an attorney under Rule 23 of the Rules of the Board on Professional Responsibility. A panel of the Board on Professional Responsibility ("Board") conducted a hearing on the matter as required by the provisions of Rule 23. The Board recommends that the application be denied at this time because the petitioner failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence of rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and competence. After consideration of the report of the Board, a transcript of the hearing before the Board, and oral argument, we agree with the findings and recommendation of the Board and deny the application for reinstatement.
The Board made the following findings of fact in connection with the application before the Court:
The panel went on to make the following conclusions of law:
Based on the above-quoted findings of fact and conclusions of law the Board recommended that the petition be denied and Reed "not be considered for reinstatement in the future except on the condition of certification by the Board of Bar Examiners of his successful completion of the Delaware Bar examination and the Professional Conduct Examination."
Our scope of review with regard to the Board's factual findings is to determine whether the record contains substantial evidence *1209 to support those findings. In the Matter of Edward A. Tos, II, Del.Supr., 576 A.2d 607 (1990). See also In re Green, Del.Supr., 464 A.2d 881, 887 (1983).
At oral argument before this Court, the petitioner contended that he had established his rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and competence by clear and convincing evidence. He also pointed out that any losses suffered by his former clients or others had been repaid even before his name was stricken. The Court has carefully reviewed the record of the limited presentation petitioner made to the Board. The record establishes that the petitioner has had no further criminal convictions. It appears that he has led a law-abiding life earning a living and being a good citizen and provider for ten years in spite of very difficult economic conditions. However, under the standards required by Rule 23(a), it is clear that the Board's conclusions as to a lack of adequate proof of professional rehabilitation and especially the Board's conclusion as to lack of evidence of current professional competence are supported by substantial evidence. To put it another way: The petitioner, who had the burden of proof, has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence of professional rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and competence.
The Court recognizes that the standards herein discussed impose a very heavy burden on one seeking readmission to the Bar. Thus the mere passage of time during which petitioner leads a good life free of criminal conduct and ethical misdeeds is not proof of professional rehabilitation or of current professional competence. Such high standards are imposed for the protection of those dealing on a professional level with one who has once had his membership in the Bar suspended or revoked. In the Matter of Sidney J. Clark, Del.Supr., 406 A.2d 28, 30 (1979); In Re Bennethum, Del.Supr., 278 A.2d 831 (1971); and In Re Hawkins, Del.Super., 27 Del. 200, 87 A. 243 (1913). The standards are appropriate in this case where there have been: a) multiple failures to meet professional standards and several chances to reform, b) failures directly related to the petitioner's practice of law, c) one of the failures involved criminal activity (theft of funds entrusted to him in connection with his law practice), and d) ten years (since petitioner's suspension) of very limited contact with many aspects of the rapidly changing provisions of Delaware law and Delaware legal procedure.
Under the circumstances, we find it to be our duty to deny the application for reinstatement to the Bar of the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware.