Opinion ID: 2514191
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Wiederholt's lack of remorse

Text: Wiederholt's testimony and evidence presented at the hearing did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he recognized the seriousness of his past conduct. The bar association contends that Wiederholt's testimony at the hearing provided strong evidence that his moral character has not reformed from his pre-disbarment days. In support of its position, the bar association argues that Wiederholt has failed to show remorse for his actions and has not acknowledged his previous wrongdoing, which he attempts to pass off as a misunderstanding of definitions. Wiederholt claims that the board's findings are flatly unsupported by the record and that he has acknowledged his personal responsibility for the disbarment. In support of his position he quotes extensively from the transcript; however, Wiederholt's quotations are selective and he leaves out considerable portions of his testimony that indicate the opposite. An examination of the full record supports the bar association's contentions. The transcript of Wiederholt's testimony is replete with examples demonstrating that he has little remorse for his previous actions and has no consciousness or understanding of the nature or extent of his past wrongdoing. During his testimony, Wiederholt continued to maintain that his past conduct did not warrant disbarment and that the board and this court wrongly decided at least some of the charges against him, including the Nesbett grievance, in which he was disciplined for deceiving the court about whether a client's judgment had been satisfied. Wiederholt stated that he did not believe that he acted unethically and that he simply believed the board and this court defined unethical conduct differently than he did. Rather than stating that he has acknowledged his past mistakes and will change in the future, he simply stated to the panel that I accept full responsibility for the conclusions that the committee and the supreme court ultimately reached.... [W]hile I believed that my conduct did not warrant disbarment, it is the conclusion that the Bar rightfully or wrongfully reached. He further stated that he deeply regret[s] the findings that the court came tonot that he regretted his actions and reemphasized that he had a different understanding of what happened. Even when he did acknowledge that he behaved in an unethical, unprofessional manner, Wiederholt still attempted to defend his actions. At the hearing, Wiederholt admitted that his act of kicking opposing counsel Dennis Maloney was stupid, unethical, and wrong. However, he then went on to minimize and justify his actions by stating that Maloney was bigger and heavier than he was and that Maloney had started the incident. He also insinuated that Maloney deserved what he received. The board found the fact that Wiederholt did not apologize to several of his victims to be a significant indicator of his lack of remorse for his previous actions, and consequently, a lack of understanding of his prior wrongdoing. The record supports this conclusion: Wiederholt did not apologize or make any restitution to at least three of his former victims. Also significant to the board was Wiederholt's insulting and abusive attitude towards others. This trait was manifested by Wiederholt, and through counsel, in belittling a disbarred lawyer who allegedly works as a hotel doorman, and criticizing a judge and bar counsel for mistreating him.