Court Opinion

ID: 9710602
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:12:49.363619+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:58.296755
License: Public Domain

DeBruler, J.,
dissents with the following opinion.
I agree that the pardon in Florida does not compel reinstatement. However, that pardon does signify that the penal interest of the State of Florida is fully satisfied and should serve in this case to preclude this Court and our Commission from denying reinstatement, under Admission and Discipline Rule 23, Section 4: Reinstatement, Paragraphs (g) and (h), simply because the petitioner was convicted for the crime of robbery. When disbarment has resulted from a conviction for a criminal offense, this Court’s interest in keeping the person disbarred solely because of that conviction is at an end when five years have elapsed from the date of disbarment and the penal interest of the State of Indiana has been fully satisfied. In Finding (h) (2), the Commission stated: “The Commission believes that Petitioner’s conviction of the crime of Robbery seriously affects his fitness to practice law.” When this finding is juxtaposed with Finding (f), that “The Commission finds Petitioner’s conduct since the discipline imposed has been exemplary and above reproach,” it is apparent to me that the continued disqualification of petitioner is based solely upon the 1965 conviction and, therefore, stands unjustified.
I would request the Commission to rehear this case and give effect to the views expressed in this opinion.
Note. — Reported at 342 N.E.2d 611.