Opinion ID: 2636101
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Gould's Petition for Reinstatement

Text: Upon receipt of Gould's petition for reinstatement, a hearing committee was appointed and hearings were had in the usual course. [4] Gould testified and presented witnesses on his own behalf; Michael Lee appeared on behalf of ODC. The hearing committee's findings summarized the testimony provided by Gould and his witnesses with regard to compliance with supreme court orders to pay costs and restitution, rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and competence. The Committee concluded Gould had met his burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, reimbursement for costs, compliance with other court-ordered requirements, including restitution payment, rehabilitation, fitness to practice, competence, and compliance with orders and rules. The Committee acknowledged Gould's RSCH Rule 2.16(d) affidavit was not timely and noted he was suffering from a severe reactive depression. With regard to compliance with RSCH Rule 2.17(a), the Committee concluded: Applicant substantially complied with RSCH [Rule] 2.17(a), except for a period of time where he acted as an agent for Alan Bradbury, Gwendolyn Johnson, and Edward Schmitt and wrote several letters on their behalf. Applicant believed that in a principal-agent relationship, the principal controlled the relationship, which distinguished this from an attorney-client relationship, where the attorney allegedly controls the relationship. Applicant also believed that he could engage in a principal-agency relationship in workers' compensation matters, since DLIR Hearings Officer Kevin Nishihara indicated that there was no problem with Applicant helping an injured worker as an agent. Applicant expressed remorse for his conduct, ceased his actions after it was brought to ODC's attention, did not appear at any court or administrative hearings for[,] and did not collect any funds from[,] the above-mentioned individuals, and resolved these matters with ODC. (Emphasis added.) The Committee acknowledged Gould's compliance with the rules might be less than perfect, but concluded he had established all elements for reinstatement . . . set forth in RSCH [Rule] 2.17(b). The Disciplinary Board accepted and adopted the Committee's FOFs, Conclusions of Law (COLs), and recommendation.