Opinion ID: 1418484
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admission of Past Wrongdoing is Essential for Reinstatement

Text: In the recent case of Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Hey (No. 28239, October 10, 2003), [1] I dissented from the majority's decision to reinstate the law license of John Hey. The proceeding against Mr. Moore is no different than that of the proceeding against Mr. Hey. Both Mr. Hey and Mr. Moore pled guilty to criminal charges and both petitioners refused, in reinstatement proceedings, to acknowledge their role in committing the crimes to which they pled guilty. I believe it is this Court's duty to the public and the bar to deny reinstatement of a law license when there is no admission to and acceptance of responsibility for the conduct which caused disbarment. See Syl. pt. 4, in part, In the Matter of Dortch, 199 W.Va. 571, 486 S.E.2d 311 (1997) (When assessing the moral character of an applicant whose background includes a criminal conviction, the following factor[ ] should be considered: ... The applicant's current attitude about the prior offenses (e.g., acceptance of responsibility for and renunciation of past wrongdoing, and remorse[.])). The record in Mr. Hey's case revealed laudable post-disbarment conduct by him. Similarly, the record in Mr. Moore's case evidenced commendable post-disbarment conduct. However, a critical factor in my dissent in Mr. Hey's case was that the record d[id] not demonstrate that [Mr. Hey] has accepted responsibility for his actions. By his own admission, he pled guilty to criminal charges only to preserve his pension. In the instant proceeding, the majority opinion found that Mr. Moore previously engaged in extremely serious misconduct, misconduct showing a willingnesson a sustained and knowing basisto be dishonest, to deceive, to conceal the truth, and to bend, manipulate, and violate the lawfor personal and professional gain. In denying Mr. Moore's petition for reinstatement of his law license, the majority opinion concluded that Mr. Moore's continued denial of wrongdoing has forced this Court to give substantial attention and weight to the proven, serious, criminal misconduct for which he was originally disbarredconduct that he admitted under oath, in statements that he now saysunder oathwere lies. If this Court reinstated Mr. Moore's license we would, in effect, be exonerating him from all guilt for the crimes to which he pled guilty. This result is the real motivation behind Mr. Moore's protestations of innocence. He seeks to use reinstatement of his law license as material support for his preposterous claim of innocence of the crimes to which he pled guilty. Fortunately, this Court has declined the invitation to be an image maker and correctly denied Mr. Moore's petition for reinstatementI only wish the Court had also had the wisdom to resist this temptation in its resolution of Mr. Hey's case. [2]