Opinion ID: 2053809
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Present Character and Competence to Practice Law

Text: Petitioner argues that the Board erred in disregarding the uncontradicted testimony of his four character witnesses. The Hearing Committee found the opinions of these witnesses to be outweighed by petitioner's reluctance to admit his misconduct. We have already addressed this point and found that the record supports a contrary conclusion. The Board accorded little weight to the testimony of petitioner's character witnesses because they were too unfamiliar with petitioner's past transgressions. However, in spite of any absence of detail of the events underlying petitioner's disbarment, each of these witnesses had some familiarity with petitioner's misconduct and had heard petitioner express remorse for it. All expressed confidence in his present good character. Although such evidence would not be sufficient alone to warrant reinstatement, Roundtree, supra, 503 A.2d at 1218, when considered with other evidence of the steps that petitioner has already taken and plans to take in the future to avoid committing similar disciplinary violations, this character evidence weighs in favor of reinstatement. Finally, the Board found that petitioner established that he is competent to resume the practice of law, and we agree. Petitioner has worked as a law clerk, at times without compensation, and improved his legal research and writing skills. Petitioner has developed particular expertise in the field of medical malpractice and personal injury, according to the witnesses. He also has definite plans designed to avoid any problems with handling clients' funds. Having considered the evidence against the relevant criteria, we are satisfied that petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence that he has the moral qualifications, competency, and learning in law required for readmission and that his reinstatement will not be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the Bar, or the administration of justice, or subversive to the public interest. D.C.Bar R. XI, § 16(d)(2); see also Roundtree, supra, 503 A.2d at 1217. Therefore, the petition for reinstatement is granted. So ordered.