Opinion ID: 2569124
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Present moral fitness.

Text: Present moral fitness is inextricably related to acceptance of wrongdoing. As this body has previously observed, Wiederholt's failure to acknowledge wrongdoing in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is evidence that Petitioner has no `greater understanding of his responsibilities as an attorney for trust, candor and honesty than he did at the time of disbarment.' [12] The Board's reasons for finding that Mr. Wiederholt's appreciation of his own wrongdoing is inadequate lead us also to the conclusion that his current moral fitness to practice law has not been proven by clear and convincing evidence. The Hearing Committee relies on certain facts to support its conclusion that moral fitness has been established to its satisfaction. These include the satisfaction of his current employer with his performance as a paralegal; his performance in his volunteer work as an EMT; and Dr. Wolf's professional opinion that Mr. Wiederholt's mental health has improved since 1992. While all of these are admirable and evidence that Mr. Wiederholt is avoiding, in his current life, the types of misconduct for which he was disbarred, it is insufficient under the circumstances, as this body previously observed: disbarment conclusively proves lack of moral fitness to practice law at the time of disbarment and, while not determinative in reinstatement, it continues to be evidence of lack of moral fitness at later times. [13] Most important to the Board's finding in this respect is Mr. Wiederholt's continuing inability to articulate, in response to very pointed questions from the Board, where he went wrong, and how he believes things are now different and unlikely to go wrong again. To every such question Mr. Wiederholt equivocates: I wasn't a bad person. I made some real mistakes in judgment. For reasons of  but for pride and arrogance, I either chose not to look at. I don't believe I had then, or have now, a deep seated psychological difficulty with telling the truth. . . . . . . . I do not believe that I was less a decent person then, and I'm certainly capable of making a right decision. And I can't tell you, except for  as to time and experience, as far beyond the practice of law, that have made me realize that as smart, as slick as I thought I was back then, that I wasn't. And if I had to look at a single issue, I couldn't give you any. It's been a long time. . . . . So if I had to guess  if I had to go back and analyze it, it was my inability to see a bigger more global picture. How my actions affected more than just my relationship between me and Mr. Metcalf. . . . I want to give you a better answer. It was an inability to see the whole picture. . . . . . . . [B]ut for my excesses, I believe that I was a good lawyer, which is to say my clients were (indiscernible). Given that Mr. Wiederholt has devoted untold hours to his pursuit of reinstatement, and given that he has known, at least since the Supreme Court's opinion in 2001, what standard would be applied to the issue of reinstatement, he could have been expected to formulate the best possible answer to the fundamental question, what did you do wrong and how do we know you won't do it again? His vague, equivocal answers under these circumstances leave the Board with the uncomfortable conviction that Mr. Wiederholt is still unable to formulate an acceptable answer to that most basic of questions, an answer that would assure the Board that he has the current moral fitness to be readmitted to the practice of law. Mr. Wiederholt has failed to sustain his heavy burden of persuasion on this issue. C. Proof that the Petitioner's return to the practice of law will not be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar or the administration of justice, or subversive of the public interest. The ultimate issue, whether Petitioner's return to the practice of law will not jeopardize the Bar, the administration, or the public interest, is also inextricably related to his acceptance of wrongdoing, and his present moral fitness. Being unable to find that Mr. Wiederholt accepts his wrongdoing with honesty and sincerity, or that he has the present moral fitness to be readmitted to the practice of law, the Board cannot perforce find that his readmission will not jeopardize the interests of the Bar, justice, or the public. While Mr. Wiederholt has, as many have commented, many talents and many positive qualities, the equivocal and contradictory nature of his explanations for the events that lead to his disbarment leave the Board unconvinced. Because the standard of proof is by clear and convincing evidence, this is considerably short of that standard.