Opinion ID: 2514191
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Consideration of a petitioner's past conduct is appropriate.

Text: Wiederholt argues that a petitioner has satisfied his Rule 29 standard of proof if he or she can demonstrate that he or she has the moral qualifications, competency, and appropriate knowledge of law at the time he or she is petitioning for reinstatement. Therefore, Wiederholt contends that it is inappropriate for the Disciplinary Board to consider the petitioner's past moral unfitness, incompetency, or lack of knowledge when making a reinstatement decision. The bar association disagrees, believing that a petitioner's past conduct has a great deal of bearing upon his or her present fitness to practice law. [34] A petitioner must demonstrate that he or she has the requisite moral qualifications, competency, and knowledge to practice law in Alaska. [35] Wiederholt points to the use of the present tense of the verb and suggests that the board should be determining whether a petitioner has the requisite qualifications as of the present time (when the petition is being reviewed) rather than looking back to and considering the petitioner's earlier conduct. Wiederholt's argument is unpersuasive. It makes little sense to consider a disbarred attorney's petition for reinstatement entirely in a vacuum, ignoring the conduct and attitude that led to disbarment. Rather, the bar association's argument that [d]isbarment conclusively proves lack of moral fitness at the time of disbarment and remains as evidence of lack of moral fitness later is supported by the decisions of courts in other jurisdictions that have explicitly acknowledged that the conduct that led to the petitioner's disbarment is an important factor to consider when determining whether the petitioner should be reinstated. [36] Courts addressing this issue cover a broad spectrum. At one extreme, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania goes so far as to begin its reinstatement inquiry by examining past conduct and, if it is sufficiently egregious, barring reinstatement altogether without looking at subsequent events. [37] At the other end of the spectrum, the Supreme Court of Mississippi apparently looks only to the petitioner's present firm resolve to live a correct life evidenced by outward manifestation sufficient to convince a reasonable mind clearly that the person has reformed. [38] But most courts take an intermediate approach. When most courts examine prior conduct, they tend to balance the evidence of the petitioner's current good character with the seriousness of the prior misconduct, inquiring whether the former is of sufficient weight to overcome the latter. [39] For example, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals has devised a five-part test a petitioner must satisfy in order to be reinstated. This comprehensive test takes into account the petitioner's past and present conduct, qualifications, and attitude. It looks at the following factors: (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 new ones; (4) the attorney's present character; and (5) the attorney's present qualifications and competence to practice law. [40] We agree with the intermediate approach taken by the majority of courts, and we conclude that a petitioner's past conduct plays an important role in determining whether the petitioner has been rehabilitated. We therefore hold that it is appropriate to consider a petitioner's past conduct in a reinstatement proceeding.