Opinion ID: 2626569
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Evidence of Pacenza's good work in his church and in his community is insufficient to overcome testimony from former colleagues and a judicial officer questioning both his legal abilities and his integrity.

Text: ¶ 17 During the reinstatement hearing, the attorney called four individuals. Two of these individuals were not listed as witnesses but were allowed to make narrative statements. Only one of the four witnesses was a lawyer familiar with Pacenza's legal practice. He testified that the attorney had given him excellent assistance in research of a complicated medical malpractice case during his suspension. He also stated that Pacenza was considered a very ethical and decent person in the community. The two individuals allowed to make narrative statements were adamant that Pacenza is a good man who does extensive work in his church, ministers to shut-ins in the local rest homes, and is a solid contributor to the well being of the community as a whole. Also included in the record are eight letters from members of the legal and church community which strongly urge reinstatement. ¶ 18 The President of the Pawnee County Bar Association, Patrick Pickerill (Pickerill), testified that he began receiving telephone calls and letters from other attorneys in his community opposing Pacenza's reinstatement even before he read the notice of the filing of the petition in the Bar Journal. Recognizing that he has had personal differences with Pacenza in the past, [27] Pickerill testified that the attorney did not possess the character and knowledge necessary to practice law [28] and that he lacked candor with his clients. [29] Pickerill also stated that he believed it would be a detriment to the law and to the legal profession if Pacenza was allowed to practice law again. [30] ¶ 19 Another lawyer testified that he became involved in a cause in which Pacenza had been the attorney of record in a guardianship and adoption case in which the father's parental rights had been terminated and an adoption had been allowed, all without notice to the father. [31] The lawyer was successful in having the father's parental rights reinstated. When asked if he would support Pacenza's readmission to the practice of law, he responded that he could not make such a recommendation. [32] ¶ 20 Pacenza listed several judges as potential witnesses. Most of those listed were ambivalent about the reinstatement either stating that they did not have a lot of contact with the attorney when practicing or that they simply had no knowledge of his having engaged in the unauthorized practice of law during his suspension. Nevertheless, the Bar Association's investigator spoke to one judge who stated that he did not support reinstatement because he did not believe the attorney to be trustworthy. [33] ¶ 21 The District Attorney of Pawhuska County stated that he did not believe Pacenza could be trusted and that he hoped he would not be reinstated. [34] In contrast, the District Attorney of Creek County said he thought the attorney was aggressive and conscientious in the representation of his clients but expressed no opinion on reinstatement. [35] ¶ 22 The statements from the attorney's witnesses are insufficient to demonstrate clear and convincing evidence [36] of either Pacenza's good moral character or his competency in the law when compared with the strength of contrary evidence elicited by the Bar Association. They do not produce in this Court's collective mind a firm belief or conviction [37] that: the attorney understands the extent of his wrongdoing; he is truly remorseful for his actions; or he possesses the good moral character necessary in one licensed by this body to practice law.