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.

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).

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.

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.

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.