Opinion ID: 2069869
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The sufficiency of the punishment undergone and the restitution made.

Text: Upon his conviction for one count of battery, a misdemeanor, Mr. Wells participated in a diversion program, which he completed. Mr. Wells' probation may have been sufficient punishment to satisfy the community's interests in retribution and deterrence. However, Mr. Wells's attitude about the actions taken against him suggests that he may not fully understand where the blame lies in his situation. Perhaps more to the point, for it is indicative of his current attitude about his misconduct, Mr. Wells has continued to provide varying rationales for his inability to obtain reinstatement that focus on others rather than his own conduct. For example, Mr. Wells asserts that his inability to obtain reinstatement is not really based upon the Indiana Supreme Court's concern about the sincerity of [his]    remorse and the integrity of his attitude towards and understanding of the standards imposed upon members of the bar, but because of personal issues regarding the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and some personal animus he might be applying to Mr. Wells. The foregoing facts in the record demonstrate that Mr. Wells has yet to meet squarely his personal responsibility for this misconduct. Thus, Mr. Wells' professed acknowledgment of his responsibility cannot be reconciled with his performance and other statements to date.