Court Opinion

ID: 9754758
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:12:39.650489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:57.415575
License: Public Domain

CATHELL, Judge.
. I concur with the majority opinion. I write separately only to address Judge Wilner’s dissent. Although I have not so written in an actual dissent, I have always argued that I believe it to be inconsistent to find that a person must be suspended or disbarred because he is a danger to the public, *546but at the same time create conditions, ie., monitoring, attendance at rehabilitation clinics, etc., upon the compliance with which, the person may have the suspension lifted or be readmitted. It has been, and is, my position that upon a request for the lifting of a suspension or a request or readmission, the Court should, at that time, look to what a particular person has voluntarily done to warrant the lifting of the suspension or readmission to the bar. It is in that context, that I will consider whether the improper legacy in this case has been voluntarily renounced.
As I see it, Judge Wilner’s concerns can be addressed either way. Accordingly, I do not disagree with the general thrust of his remarks, but, I believe the issue of renunciation is better addressed at a subsequent point in the process.
Dissenting opinion by