Court Opinion

ID: 9518780
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:02:00.019239+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:36:01.807416
License: Public Domain

DICKSON, Justice,
dissenting.
Six months after his federal felony conviction for Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, the petitioner submitted his resignation from the practice of law in Indiana and thereby avoided prosecution by the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission and the very substantial probability of resulting disbarment.
A person who has resigned from law practice in Indiana may petition for reinstatement after five years, but such petition may be granted only if the person satisfies each of several enumerated prerequisite conditions by clear and convincing evidence. Ind. Admission and Discipline Rule 23(4)(a) and (b). One of these prerequisites, number (7), presents an enormous obstacle to a person’s reinstatement after a felony conviction:
(7) The petitioner can safely be recommended to the legal profession, the courts and the public as a person fit to be consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise act in matters of trust and confidence, and in general to aid in the administration of justice as a member of the bar and an officer of the Courts[.]
Admin. Disc. R. 23(4)(b)(7).
Choosing to engage in conduct that constitutes a felony speaks volumes about a *543person’s judgment, trustworthiness, responsibility, and respect for law and the legal profession. Even for persons who are not yet attorneys, this Court expressly recognizes, as provided in Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 12, Section 2, that a felony conviction constitutes presumptive proof that a person lacks “the requisite of good moral character” necessary for admission to practice law.
The qualities of mercy and forgiveness favor accommodating the petitioner’s desire for restoration to the legal profession. But outweighing this is our responsibility to protect citizens from the risk of probable harm. Once a person, especially one who has been granted the privilege of admission to the bar, dishonors the law by committing a felony, it seems extremely doubtful that he or she can thereafter again be safely entrusted with the lives and interests of others — the essence of the practice of law.
The petitioner has not persuaded me, and definitely not by clear and convincing evidence, that he “can safely be recommended to the legal profession, the courts and the public as a person fit to be consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise act in matters of trust and confidence, and in general to aid in the administration of justice as a member of the bar and an officer of the Courts.” Adm. Disc. R. 23(4)(b)(7). For this reason, I dissent to his reinstatement.
SHEPARD, C.J., joins.