Opinion ID: 1296515
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: yellow pages ad

Text: ¶ 32. The referee determined that in late 1999 Webster placed an advertisement for his law office in the Yellow Pages of the local telephone book. That ad appeared in the phonebook distributed early in January of 2000 which was several weeks before the two-year anniversary date of this court's January 21, 1998, suspension order. ¶ 33. At the hearing before the referee Webster claimed that he had assumed that the order suspending his license for a period of two years would expire at the end of that two-year period on January 21, 2000, and that he would then be automatically reinstated on that date. He also said that if a potential client had called in response to the ad prior to the time of his anticipated automatic reinstatement, he would have simply referred that person to another attorney. ¶ 34. The referee was critical of Webster's failure to undertake any research concerning the reinstatement rules. The referee said that by simply reading SCR 22.28(3), [7] or by simply contacting BAPR, Webster would have discovered that his reinstatement would not be automatic. According to the referee, Webster's explanation that he assumed he would be automatically reinstated was either wholly disingenuous or, as Webster himself termed it, incredibly stupid. The referee wrote: One would think that a lawyer whose license has been suspended and who desires to practice law again would have at least a passing familiarity with the rules governing reinstatement. After all, one's livelihood as an attorney depends upon it. Even if one accepts petitioner's testimony that he truly thought his license would be automatically reinstated, his failure to make certain [of that] demonstrates a basic lack of competence which does not advance his claim that reinstatement would not be detrimental to future clients. In addition, petitioner's willingness to place an ad that he knew would appear in print before January 21, 1998 [sic] is yet another example of his willingness to cut corners when it suits his purpose. ¶ 35. On appeal Webster concedes that placing the ad was incredibly stupid; he claims, however, that it resulted from his failure to understand the amount of time it would take to obtain reinstatement. Again, Webster notes that he derived no legal business from the ad and he accepts the referee's criticism that he should have read the reinstatement rules before placing the ad. ¶ 36. We believe, as OLR maintains, that there is nothing ambiguous about SCR 22.28(3). Neither the former version nor the current version of this reinstatement provision can be read to support a reasonable belief that an attorney whose license to practice law has been suspended for two years would be automatically reinstated at the end of that two-year period. Furthermore, as OLR points out in its brief, Webster's ad in the Yellow Pages identifying him as an attorney was distributed in the January 1, 2000, edition of the Yellow Pages; that was three weeks before Webster himself thought his suspension period would end and his license would be automatically reinstated. ¶ 37. As discussed above, Webster's check writing and placing the telephone ad reflect a cavalier attitude on his part toward the standards of behavior needed to gain reinstatement. These acts demonstrate that Webster has failed to meet his burden of proof under SCR 22.31(1) to obtain reinstatement of his license. Webster's repeated lapses in judgment reflected by these actions support our decision to deny his reinstatement petition.