It should go without saying that we hold a particularly dim view of attorney misconduct involving dishonesty, theft, or similar criminal conduct by public officials. Such misconduct “strikes at the very heart of public trust in our institutions of government and the legal profession,” Matter of Gutman, 599 N.E.2d 604, 609 (Ind.1992), and generally has been met with severe sanction from this Court. See Matter of Riddle, 700 N.E.2d 788 (Ind.1998) (disbarring a prosecutor who committed ghost employment); Matter of Philpot, 31 N.E.3d 468 (Ind.2015) (suspending for at least four years without automatic reinstatement an elected county clerk convicted of theft and mail fraud).
With the elements of Admis.Disc.R. 23(4) in mind, the present fitness to practice law of an attorney seeking reinstatement must be considered in light of the offenses for which he or she was disciplined. Matter of Gutman, 599 N.E.2d 604, 608 (Ind. 1992). The analysis involves a balancing process in which on one side of the scale we place the seriousness of the misconduct and on the other, the petitioner's subsequent conduct and his present character.
Should Respondent seek reinstatement after that minimum period of suspension has elapsed, his petition will be granted only if he is able to prove his fitness to resume the practice of law by clear and convincing evidence, a burden that will be particularly steep given the severity of Respondent's misconduct. SeeMatter of Gutman , 599 N.E.2d 604, 608 (Ind. 1992) ("The more serious the misconduct, the greater its negative impact on future rehabilitation and eventual reinstatement, the greater Petitioner's burden of proof to overcome the implication of unfitness which is conjured by the misconduct"). Conclusion
Should Respondent seek reinstatement at that time, his petition will be granted only if he is able to prove his fitness to resume the practice of law by clear and convincing evidence, a burden that will be particularly steep given the severity of Respondent's misconduct. SeeMatter of Gutman , 599 N.E.2d 604, 608 (Ind. 1992) ("The more serious the misconduct, the greater its negative impact on future rehabilitation and eventual reinstatement, the greater Petitioner's burden of proof to overcome the implication of unfitness which is conjured by the misconduct"). Conclusion
Where the severity and scope of the attorney's misconduct are as extreme as Respondent's pattern of misconduct was here, an attorney who seeks reinstatement will face a particularly steep burden to gain reentry. SeeMatter of Gutman , 599 N.E.2d 604, 608 (Ind. 1992) ("The present fitness to practice law of an attorney seeking reinstatement must be considered in light of the offenses for which the petitioner was disciplined.... The more serious the misconduct, the greater its negative impact on future rehabilitation and eventual reinstatement, the greater [the] burden of proof to overcome the implication of unfitness which is conjured by the misconduct"). It will be the rare case in which such a heightened burden will be met, and there is little in the record before us that would suggest Respondent will be capable of doing so.
As we have observed before, criminal action by an attorney in public office “strikes at the very heart of public trust in our institutions of government and the legal profession.” Matter of White, 54 N.E.3d 993, 994 (Ind.2016) (quoting Matter of Gutman, 599 N.E.2d 604, 609 (Ind.1992) ). Such misconduct consistently has resulted in disbarment or a substantial period of suspension without automatic reinstatement.
The fitness to practice law of an attorney who petitions for reinstatement "must be considered in light of the offenses for which the petitioner was disciplined;" thus, the more serious the misconduct, "the greater [the] burden of proof to overcome the implication of unfitness which is conjured by the misconduct." Matter of Gutman, 599 N.E.2d 604, 608 (Ind. 1992). With the above considerations in mind, the Court now APPROVES and ORDERS the agreed discipline.
The fitness to practice law of an attorney seeking reinstatement "must be considered in light of the offenses for which the petitioner was disciplined." Matter of Gutman, 599 N.E.2d 604, 608 (Ind. 1992). "The more serious the misconduct, the greater its negative impact on future rehabilitation and eventual reinstatement, the greater Petitioner's burden of proof to overcome the implication of unfitness which is conjured by the misconduct."
The hearing officer's findings, in this instance adopted by the Commission, receive emphasis due to the hearing officer's unique opportunity for direct observation of witnesses, but they are not binding, and this Court reserves the right to reach the ultimate determination. Matter of Gutman, 599 N.E.2d 604 (Ind. 1992). Petitioner was admitted to the practice of law in this state in 1985.
The hearing officer's findings, in this instance adopted by the Commission, receive emphasis due to the hearing officer's unique opportunity for direct observation of witnesses, but they are not binding, and this Court reserves the right to reach the ultimate determination. Matter of Gutman, 599 N.E.2d 604 (Ind. 1992). Petitioner was admitted to the practice of law in this state in 1976.