In re Simmons

5 Citing cases

  1. In Re: Brown

    166 W. Va. 226 (W. Va. 1980)   Cited 56 times
    Denying reinstatement for an attorney who was convicted of conspiracy to commit bribery and bribery of a juror because reinstatement would have a "justifiable and substantial adverse effect on public confidence in the administration of justice"

    In re Reed, 341 So.2d 774 (Fla. 1977); Lester v. Kentucky BarAssociation, 532 S.W.2d 435 (Ky. 1976); In re Braverman, 271 Md. 196, 316 A.2d 246 (1974); In re Hiss, 368 Mass. 447, 333 N.E.2d 429 (1975) (heavy burden); In re Peterson, 274 N.W.2d 922 (Minn. 1979) (clear and satisfactory evidence); Petition of Simmons, 71 Wn.2d 316, 428 P.2d 582 (1967) (affirmative showing); 7 Am.Jur.2d Attorney at Law § 72 (1963); Annot. 70 A.L.R.2d 268, 297 (1960). One of our earliest reinstatement cases is In re Daugherty, 103 W. Va. 7, 136 S.E. 402 (1927), where the application for reinstatement was made in the circuit court where the attorney had been disbarred.

  2. In re Walgren

    104 Wn. 2d 557 (Wash. 1985)   Cited 20 times
    In Matter of Reinstatement of Walgren, 104 Wn.2d 557, 708 P.2d 380 (1985), the Washington Supreme Court held that the petitioner-attorney could not be reinstated into the Washington State Bar until he satisfactorily completed the conditions of his parole and was discharged therefrom pursuant to the applicable federal statute.

    While evidence of rehabilitation consists primarily of acts and conduct, rehabilitation is also demonstrated by the attorney's remorse for and appreciation of the misconduct for which he was suspended or disbarred. In re Krogh, 93 Wn.2d 504, 507, 610 P.2d 1319 (1980); In re Simmons, 71 Wn.2d 316, 319-20, 428 P.2d 582 (1967). Accord, In re Wright, 102 Wn.2d 855, 859, 690 P.2d 1134 (1984).

  3. In re Simmons

    81 Wn. 2d 43 (Wash. 1972)   Cited 7 times

    His first petition for reinstatement was denied June 1, 1967. In re Simmons, 71 Wn.2d 316, 428 P.2d 582 (1967). Petitioner has been disbarred for 8 years.

  4. In re Rosellini

    108 Wn. 2d 350 (Wash. 1987)   Cited 10 times
    Listing Washington and other cases

    Rather, each denial has been based on an identifiable failure to demonstrate rehabilitation. In re Eddleman, 77 Wn.2d 42, 45, 459 P.2d 387, 461 P.2d 9 (1969); In re Simmons, 71 Wn.2d 316, 320-21, 428 P.2d 582 (1967); In re Seijas, 63 Wn.2d 865, 870, 389 P.2d 652 (1964); In re Durham, 59 Wn.2d 185, 187, 367 P.2d 126 (1961); In re Gowan, 141 Wn. 523, 525-26, 251 P. 773 (1927). Adherence to the Eddleman factors requires us to consider the individual facts and circumstances of the particular attorney rather than adherence to statistical averages.

  5. In re Eddleman

    77 Wn. 2d 42 (Wash. 1969)   Cited 16 times

    Third, the findings and recommendation of the Board of Governors, though advisory only and not conclusive, are entitled to considerable weight. [2] We have stated and applied these general principles in In re Simmons, 71 Wn.2d 316, 428 P.2d 582 (1967); In reSeijas, 63 Wn.2d 865, 389 P.2d 652 (1964). In those cases we enumerated certain of the factors which are to be considered in assessing an applicant's present fitness for reinstatement: (a) the applicant's character, standing, and professional reputation in the community in which he resided and practiced prior to disbarment; (b) the ethical standards which he observed in the practice of law; (c) the nature and character of the charge for which he was disbarred; (d) the sufficiency of the punishment undergone in connection therewith, and the making or failure to make restitution where required; (e) his attitude, conduct, and reformation subsequent to disbarment; (f) the time that has elapsed since disbarment; (g) his current proficiency in the law; and (h) the sincerity, frankness, and truthfulness of the applicant in presenting and discussing the factors relating to his disbarment and reinstatement.