Court Opinion

ID: 9551057
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:47:08.458334+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:22:58.167241
License: Public Domain

Goodloe, J.
(dissenting) — The majority holds that Gordon Walgren, subject to certain prerequisites and upon completion of his parole, may be reinstated as a member of the Washington State Bar. With this determination, I cannot agree.
I object because this court should not review a petition for reinstatement from a disbarred attorney still on parole and because a disbarred attorney, as a matter of law, cannot show rehabilitation until an adequate time has passed after completion of his parole.
No case was found where a court approved the reinstatement of a disbarred attorney while the disbarred attorney was still on parole. My reading of the majority opinion leads me to believe that it has preapproved Walgren's reinstatement subject to the following conditions: passing the bar examination; discharge from parole with accompanying restoration of his civil rights; submission of an affidavit by Walgren to the Bar Association; and certification from the Bar Association to this court. Majority opinion, at 572. Upon these prerequisites being met, this court will automatically reinstate Walgren as a member of the Washington State Bar.
*575My primary reason for objection is that this court requires a disbarred attorney to bear the substantial burden of proving rehabilitation. Walgren has not met this burden, nor can he, in my opinion, until an adequate time has passed after he has completed parole. This court has so held in the past. In re Lonergan, 23 Wn.2d 767, 162 P.2d 289 (1945).
In Lonergan, an attorney stipulated to disbarment after he was found guilty of federal mail fraud arising out of a speculative silver market operation. After serving 11/2 years in prison, the attorney was released on parole for 2 years. One month after his parole expired, and with the considerable support of prominent members of the legal community, the attorney applied for reinstatement. This first petition was denied. The court explained its action.
It [the first petition] was prematurely filed. It is universally held that one who has been disbarred — and one who has resigned in order to forestall disbarment is in the same position — should not be reinstated until sufficient time has elapsed to enable him to actually demonstrate, by conduct, that he is, in fact, worthy of trust and confidence. In effect, he is expected, and required, to establish a new reputation.
(Italics mine.) Lonergan, at 771.
Although no showing was attempted in Lonergan, as to the attorney's actions since disbarment, the court held such a showing "would have been impossible". (Italics mine.) Lonergan, at 771. The court explained:
When he filed his resignation from the bar on October 3, 1938, the petitioner had already begun his term in prison. He was paroled on December 3, 1939, and remained a parolee until his sentence expired on June 16, 1941. He filed his first petition for reinstatement on July 14, 1941. Hence, during the period which elapsed between his resignation and the filing of his first petition for reinstatement, he was, as to his conduct, under Federal regulation and compulsion for a period of two years and nine months, and a free agent with respect thereto but twenty-eight days. This is too short a time in which to establish a provable reputation of being worthy of trust *576and confidence. The first petition was premature, unseemly so.
(Italics mine.) Lonergan, at 772. Similarly, I find Walgren's petition premature, unseemly so. Walgren is currently under federal regulation and compulsion and will remain in this status until at least May 1986 and possibly until May 1987. Because in Lonergan, the attorney could not in fact prove rehabilitation upon the mere completion of parole, I do not know how the majority can hold Walgren has in fact proven rehabilitation when he only just recently began his parole.
The majority, after citing much of the Lonergan language but not applying any of it, states that
Lonergan raises two issues which bear directly on Walgren's application for reinstatement. The first, considering the conduct for which Walgren was disbarred, is whether sufficient time has elapsed to establish, and whether he in fact has established, a "new reputation". The second is whether, as a matter of law, a disbarred attorney may be reinstated before he has successfully completed the terms of his parole.
Majority opinion, at 565-66.
The Lonergan court explicitly refused to consider the conduct for which the attorney was disbarred. Despite a report of an investigator adopted by the Board of Governors that the disbarred attorney's "transactions appeared in exact conformity to what is done every day in other commodity markets” and that the attorney was "made the goat . . . and . . . promptly and politely railroaded", the Loner-gan court held that the question of guilt or innocence is "entirely irrelevant". Lonergan, at 770-71.
When one has been disbarred on account of having been convicted of a crime applies for reinstatement, whatever opinions members of the court may hold as individuals as to his guilt or innocence is entirely irrelevant. In exercising their judicial functions, they must treat his guilt as an established fact.
Lonergan, at 771.
The Lonergan court explicitly answered in the negative *577the issue of whether sufficient time could elapse to establish a new reputation when it determined that 28 days after parole, as a matter of law, is too short a time period in which to prove rehabilitation. This determination in turn implicitly answers in the negative the next question of whether an attorney could he reinstated while on parole. I find Lonergan, rather than raising the questions the majority suggests, dispositively answers those questions.
I also object to the majority's discussion of sufficiency of the punishment, under the circumstances presented. In re Eddleman, 77 Wn.2d 42, 44, 459 P.2d 387, 461 P.2d 9 (1969) lists eight criteria used to assess an attorney's readiness for reinstatement. Element (d) is described in part as "sufficiency of the punishment undergone in connection therewith". Eddleman, at 44. "[I]n connection therewith" refers back to element (c), which is "the nature and character of the charge for which he was disbarred". Eddleman, at 44. The nature and character of the charge for which Wal-gren was disbarred was his conviction under the RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (1982). The RICO statute requires an "enterprise" and two acts of "racketeering activity" within 10 years of each other in furtherance of the enterprise. See 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5) (1982). The enterprise element was Walgren's agreement with others to promote gambling legislation in Washington in exchange for a promise of a 6 percent share of profits in certain gambling related enterprises. United States v. Bagnariol, 665 F.2d 877, 881, 891 (9th Cir. 1981). The racketeering activity element was shown by violations of the mail fraud and travel act statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1952(a)(3) (1982) respectively. Bagnariol, at 896-99. The conviction, in terms of this proceeding, evidenced an agreement to sell his vote, that is to say, an agreement to betray the public trust. There can be no question but this is a most serious offense.
At this point, Walgren has not even completed the punishment deemed necessary by the judicial system which determined his guilt. As noted by the majority, a release on parole provides, "the opportunity to prove" one's ability to *578reintegrate into society and indicates one is "susceptible to rehabilitation". Majority opinion, at 570. Until Walgren has completed the punishment imposed on him by law, I believe it is presumptuous of Walgren to ask for reinstatement and for this court to grant it. At this point, the court cannot determine whether enough punishment has been imposed.
It is interesting that the majority should compare Wal-gren's punishment to the punishment in In re Krogh, 93 Wn.2d 504, 610 P.2d 1319 (1980). Majority opinion, at 572. The majority's description of the Krogh punishment omits critical textual and footnote material. The Krogh court stated:
The punishment which Mr. Krogh has undergone includes, after his plea of guilty, the serving of time in prison followed by a period of probation, the disabilities attached to his conviction,1 the loss of his government post, 6 years of disbarment, and the mental and emotional suffering attendant upon these penalties.
(Italics mine.) Krogh, at 507. Because of these omissions, I do not find the cases to be analogous. A decision not to review Walgren's petition for reinstatement at this time is not a decision to impose additional punishment upon him. Rather, it is a recognition that Walgren has not yet completed the original punishment imposed for his crime.
Even though the attorney in Krogh had been disbarred for 6 years and his behavior in the interim had been found to be consistently honorable, Justice Wright felt "that a substantially longer period of time should be allowed to elapse to let him prove that he has rehabilitated himself before he is readmitted." Krogh, at 509 (Wright, J., dissenting). As noted by a commentator cited by the majority, "the most convincing evidence of rehabilitation is often the simple passage of time without transgressions.” McChry-stal, A Structural Analysis of the Good Moral Character Requirement for Bar Admission, 60 Notre Dame L. Rev. *57967, 91 (1984). In my opinion, enough time has not passed. As explained by Justice Wright,
The sanction of disbarment is one which is reserved for the most serious offenders among the legal profession. It is a sanction reserved for those who in the judgment of the Supreme Court are no longer fit to practice law; those who do not merit the confidence of the public; those whose continuation in the legal profession will constitute a menace to the public and a discredit to the honor of the profession. Some who have been disbarred are permitted at a later time to petition for reinstatement — many never do.
Krogh, at 509 (Wright, J., dissenting). Now is not the time for Walgren to petition for reinstatement.
My determination that it is currently too soon for Wal-gren to seek reinstatement does not mean that he can never be reinstated. This court has granted petitions for readmission from those who were originally denied readmission in several cases. See In re Eddleman, 79 Wn.2d 725, 489 P.2d 174 (1971) (second petition); In re Simmons, 81 Wn.2d 43, 499 P.2d 874 (1972) (second petition); In re Lonergan, 23 Wn.2d 767, 162 P.2d 289 (1945) (third petition).
Callow, J., concurs with Goodloe, J.

We are assured that all such disabilities have now expired.