Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
No. 1 6

- BG

- 838
I N RE C HRIS C. Y UM , P ETITIONER

. A Disbarred Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ( Bar Registration No. 424602) On Report and Recommendation of the Board of Professional Res ponsibility (B DN 67

- 15 ) (Argued May 23, 2017 Decided July 12, 2018)
Chris C. Yum , p ro s e
. William R. Ross , Assistant Disciplinary Counsel , Hamilton P. Fox, III , Disciplinary Counsel, Jelani L owery and Jennifer P. Lyman , Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel s , were on the brief, for respondent

. Before G LICKMAN and B ECKWITH , Associate Judges , and N EBEKER , Senior Judge

. P ER C URIAM : On May 12, 2011, p etitioner Chris topher C. Yum was
disbarred b y consent following his 2006 conviction for making a false statement in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1001. In re Yum , 19 A.3d 367 (D.C. 2011) (per curiam)

. On June 14, 2015, he filed a petition for reinstatement, which2
Disciplinary Counsel opposed. The parties appeared before a n Ad Hoc Hearing Committee (“Hearing Committee”) , which recommended reinstatement. Disciplinary Counsel took exception to the recommendation , and brought the
matter before th is court. Following oral argument, we referred the matt er to the Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”) for its recommendation as to whether petitioner should be reinstated, and as to evidentiary issues related to
Board Rule 9.8

. On December 22, 2017, t he Board issued a report recommending
denial of t he petition

. For the reasons that follow, we deny the petition

.

“Although we place great weight on the recommendations of the Board and Hearing Committee, this court has the ultimate authority to decide whether to grant a petition for reinstatement. ” I n re Sabo , 49 A.3d 1219, 1224 (D.C. 2012) (quotation and citation omitted). A petitioner seeking reinstatement must prove by clear and convincing evidence “(a) [t]hat the attorney has the moral qualifications, competency, and learning in law required for readmission[,] and (b) [t]hat the resumption of the practice of law by the attorney will not be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the Bar, or to the administration of justice, or subversive to the public interest.” D.C. Bar R. XI , § 16 (d)(1) ; In re Mance , 171 A.3d 1133, 1136 (D.C. 2017) . We consider the following “ Roundtree factors” in determining3

w hether a petitioner has made these required showings : (1) the nature and circumstances of the misconduct for which the attorney was disciplined; (2 ) whether the attorney recognizes the seriousness of the misconduct; (3) the attorney's conduct since discipline was imposed, including the steps taken to remedy past wrongs and prevent future ones; (4) the attorney ’ s present character; and (5) the attorne y ’ s present qualifications and competence to practice law. In re
R oundtree , 503 A.2d 1215, 1217 (D.C. 1985)

.

The first Roundtree factor is “of primary importance in considering the petition for reinstatement.” In re Bettis , 644 A.2d 1023, 1028 (D.C. 199 4). Here,
p etitioner acknowledges the seriousness of remaining willfully blind to a false statement in an INS application submitted on behalf of a client. We apply “heightened scrutiny” to the other Roundtree factors where, as here, petitioner’s
miscondu ct “i s so closely bound up with [his] role and responsibilities as an attorney .” See Sabo , 49 A.3d at 1224; In re Borders , 665 A.2d 1381, 1382 (D.C. 1995) (quotation omitted)

. Because the Hearing Committee hear d p etitioner testify , we , like the Board, ac cept its conclusion that he is genuinely remorseful
and recognizes the seriousness of his misconduct

. Nevertheless, when viewed with heightened scrutiny, the fourth and fifth Roundtree factors counsel against4

reinstatement and lead us to conclude that p et itioner has failed to prove his fitness

. 1

“ Under the fourth Roundtree factor, a petitioner is required to prove that
those traits that led to disbarment no longer exist and, indeed, that he is a changed individual having full appreciation of the wrongf ulness of his conduct and a new determination to adhere to the high standards of integrity and legal compet ence which the Court requires.” Sabo , 49 A.3d at 1232 (quotation omitted). In support of this factor, petitioner testified to his reflections about his misconduct and presented two character wit nesses
. The Hearing Committee viewed p etitioner’s testimony as “demonstrat[ing] that he is a changed individual,” but accorded little weight to the character witnesses, finding that neither witn ess knew the d etails of
his misconduct

. The Board found the evidence on this factor to be lacking , cit ing
the witnesses ’ un familiar ity with the misconduct. In his brief, p etitioner contends
that the witness es ’ testimony demonstrates their familiarity with his miscondu ct , and therefore deserve s significant weight

.

A petitioner is “ expected to put on live witnesses familiar with the

1 We find that p etitioner’s post

- discipline conduct weighs against reinstatement, but focus our analysis on the fourth and fifth Roundtree factors, which are stronger determinants of our judg ment.5
underlying misconduct who can provide credible evidence of petitioner ’ s present good character.” Sabo , 49 A.3d at 1232 (quotation and al te ration omitted)

. We concur with the Hearing Committee and Board that p etitioner’s witnesses were
unfa miliar with the details of his misco n duct

. 2 Although p etitioner provide d assurances of his new character, he offered no examples of post

- discipline con duct from which his personal growth can be reasonably inferred. Applying heightened scrutiny, we deem the lack of evidence regarding petitioner’s present character to weigh against reinstatement. See, e.g., In re Tinsley , 668 A.2d 833, 838 (D.C. 1995) (p er curiam) (appending Board report) (petitioner failed to prove his present good character where his two character witnesses lacked substantial knowledge regarding his misconduct ).

As to the fifth Roundtree factor, t he Hearing Committee found that
p etit ioner established his present qualifications and competence to practice law
because he attended a D.C. Bar course , adequately represented himself in the se reinstatement proceedings, and worked as a law clerk, translator , and document

2 Mr. Yi believed that p etitioner’s misconduct related to attorney’s fees. Ms. Osnos testified that p etitioner’s misconduct arose from “miscommunications ” with a client and , later in the hearing, p etitioner conceded that she did not know “the deta ils” of his conviction.6

reviewer after his dis barment

. The Board cited p etitioner ’s fail ure to explain
whether h is work required legal analysis or call witnesses who could testify to his

c ompetence in the work he described

.

A petitioner ’s post

- disbarment legal work may demonstrate his competence

t o practice

. See, e.g., Bettis , 644 A.2d at 1030 (petitioner established his competence where he “wo rked as a law clerk . . . and improved his lega l research and writing skills”). However, l ike the Board, we deem significant p etitioner ’s
failure to explai n whether his post

- disbarment work required legal analysis or otherwise improved his legal knowledge or skills

. See, e.g., Tinsley , 668 A.2d at
838 (appending Board report) (petitioner failed to demonstrate his competence
where he provided no details conc erning his legal teaching experiences ). Nor did
p etitioner call witnesses who could testify to the quality or nature of his work. See,

e.g., In re Stanton , 589 A.2d 425, 427 (D.C. 1991) (per curiam) ( petitioner failed to prove his competence where no sup ervisory lawyer testified to his w ork). Applying heightened scrutiny, we find that the remaining evidence is too meager to establish his competence to practice , and therefore conclude that this Roundtree factor weighs against reinstatement.7

For these re asons , 3 the petition for reinstatement is denied

.

So ordered.

3 Given our disposition , w e n e ed n o t address whether the Hearing Committee should have considered the additional unfavorable evidence , proffered by Disciplinary Counsel, related to p etitioner’s conviction

.