Opinion ID: 2538951
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The attorney presented stronger proof of his present moral fitness to practice law than would a first-time applicant for admission.

Text: ¶ 12 Fourteen witnesses appeared before the trial panel in support of Mumina's reinstatement. State Representative Mike Shelton (Shelton/Representative) testified that the attorney's earlier misdeeds had not affected adversely the attorney's leadership in the community and that he would have no hesitation in employing him as an attorney. Not only did Shelton provide an unqualified recommendation for reinstatement, he testified that the attorney's inability to practice was a detriment to the Representative's constituents. [25] A retired long-time prosecutor in the United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of Oklahoma stated that he would welcome Mumina's reinstatement and was confident that the attorney would be a valuable contributor to the city, to the judicial system, and to the Bar. [26] Two sitting District Court Judges, with knowledge of both the complaint filed against the attorney and the federal indictment, recommended reinstatement. One of the judges actively encouraged Mumina to seek the same. [27] The lawyer for whom Mumina has been doing para-legal work testified that, during the five years of their association, the attorney has been forthright, honest, and completely trustworthy. In addition, the lawyer testified that throughout the same time period, Mumina had demonstrated his fitness, moral character, and competency in the law. [28] ¶ 13 Three attorneys testified against Mumina's reinstatement. Two of the three were members of the firm from which the attorney misappropriated funds and the third was the attorney hired to handle the firm's bar complaint against the attorney. Despite their concerns about reinstatement, one of the attorneys testified that Mumina was one of the most qualified attorneys he had ever encountered. [29] The other stated that he believed that Mumina's actions had been out of character for the attorney and that he had no knowledge of Mumina's present fitness to return to the practice of law. [30] The third witness for the Bar Association was the attorney hired by the firm to prosecute the bar complaint. He took no position on the issue of reinstatement. [31] ¶ 14 We do not ignore either the serious nature of Mumina's transgressions or the steep hill he must climb before he may be considered for reinstatement. All that is required of a first-time applicant is that the individual show that he or she has good moral character, due respect for the law, and fitness to practice law without any demand of proof of the same. [32] When viewed in its entirety, the evidence goes well beyond those requirements and is clear and convincing [33] in support of the attorney's present moral fitness to return to the practice of law in Oklahoma. [34]