Opinion
PER CURIAM.
The Petition for the Reinstatement of Biagio J. Perrello, having been filed on November 22, 1974, was referred to the Disciplinary Commission of this Court and said petitioner was afforded the opportunity of a hearing before the Disciplinary Commission; said hearing was reported and held on January 10, 1975 and continued and completed on February 5, 1975 before a majority of the members of that Commission. The record of that hearing was filed in this Court on June 13, 1975 and forms the basis for the 'Findings and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Commission as to Petition for Reinstatement' which was signed by four (4) members of that Commission and filed on the same date. Those 'Findings and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Commission as to Petition for
Reinstatement' are as follows: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION AS TO PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT
Pursuant to A.D. Rule 23, Section 4, a quorum of the Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Indiana (herein the 'Commission'), comprised of Rudolph V. Dawson, Chairman; Ronald R. fifer, Secretary; James G. McDonald, Member; and The Honorable Paul H. Buchanan, Jr., Member, conducted a reinstatement hearing upon the petition of Biagio J. Perrello. The hearing began on January 10, 1975, at 1:45 p.m., and adjourned at 7 p.m. The hearing was reopened on February 5, 1975, at 9:30 a.m., and was completed and adjourned at 4:30 p.m. The Commission then met in an executive session from 4:30 p.m. until 7:30 p.m. to consider its decision. Members Robert Keegan and Lewis C. Bose were present through parts of the hearing, but did not participate in the deliberation and decision.
The Commission was represented at the hearing by Richard H. Grabham, its Executive Secretary. The Petitioner, Biagio J. Perrello, appeared pro se, with John Manning as an adviser.
On May 1, 1973, the Indiana Supreme Court, upon the recommendation of the hearing officer, suspended the Petitioner from the practice of law in the State of Indiana for a period of two years and allowed the Petitioner credit for the time that he had been suspended pending the determination of the cause on its merits. Prior to this date, on November 20, 1972, and December 12, 1972, Petitioner was cited for a contempt of this Court for practicing law while suspended, was convicted, and served a one-month sentence executed at the State Farm.
Rule 23, Section 4 of 'INDIANA RULES FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR AND THE DISCIPLINE OF ATTORNEYS' provides that an attorney, once suspended, shall not be eligible for reinstatement to practice law in Indiana unless he establishes by clear and convincing evidence before the Commission each of nine requirements set out in Section 4. The instant proceeding before the Commission, was held to determine whether Petitioner has met this burden with respect to each of the nine items. The Commission finds the following:
(a) Petitioner desires in good faith to obtain restoration of his privilege to practice law.
(b) The term of Petitioner's suspension, prescribed in the May 1, 1973, order of this Court has elapsed.
(c) Petitioner has not engaged generally in the practice of law or attempted to do so since he was disciplined, but walked a thin line which has consisted of acts incident to the practice of law and further evidences a lack of understanding of the gravity of the order made against him. These acts consisted of letters written by Petitioner to attorneys, and in one case, to a lay person (Commission Exhibits 3, 13, 14, 15, and 16) relating to the settling of lawsuits in which he had been involved. All the letters were written on the Petitioner's office stationary designating him as attorney at law, and were generally directed to collecting his portion of the fee on contingent fee cases. While Petitioner presented rebuttal evidence to show that the attorneys to which he wrote the letters knew of his suspension at the time they received them, there is a lack of propriety in both the tenor of the letters and use of the stationery. The testimony of Ronald J. Hofer (Tr., first day, pp. 187--188) indicates that in February, 1973, while under suspension, Petitioner attempted to settle a case he had filed prior to this time, and in this specific instance he did, in fact, engage in the practice of law. Petitioner did not obtain other work during the period of his suspension and asserted he was unable to do so.
(d) Except to the extent indicated under subparagraph (c), Petitioner has generally complied with the terms of the order for discipline.
(e) Petitioner's attitude toward the misconduct for which he was disqualified was not one of genuine remorse. Throughout the proceeding, Petitioner during the proceeding exhibited an attitude of hostility toward the disciplinary proceedings against him, appeared unable to grasp the gravity of his suspension as a disciplinary matter (Tr., second day, pp. 85--87 and 115--117), except as it affected him, or any comprehension or appreciation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In many stages of the hearing, Petitioner picked at details many going to matters occurring prior to his suspension, rather than getting to the substance of the hearing. The record of the hearing is filled with examples of Petitioner's refusal to accept, without argument, the rulings of the Commission Chairman or abide by orderly procedure. A few of the many examples can be found in the transcript on pages 154 (first day), 29--31 (second day), 67--71 (second day), and 79 (second day) of the transcript.
(f) The Commission cannot find that Petitioner's conduct since the discipline imposed has been exemplary and above reproach, and the comments applicable under subparagraph (c) are applicable here.
(g) Petitioner did not demonstrate a proper understanding of and attitude toward the standards imposed upon members of the bar, and the Commission has no assurance that he will conduct himself in accordance with these standards since it is unable to find that he has any true understanding of these standards.
(h) The Commission cannot safely recommend Petitioner 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 officer of the court.
The Commission makes this finding after spending many hours with Mr. Perrello; after hearing his attempt to present evidence in support of his petition for reinstatement; after hearing him cross-examine witnesses for the Commission; after hearing him attempt to put on rebuttal evidence; and after hearing him make both procedural and evidentiary objections. When all of these are taken as a whole, they lead to only one finding. That finding is that Biagio J. Perrello substantially lacks knowledge of legal procedure, of the rules of evidence, and of even a routine knowledge of the substantive law in this state and of the essential nature and issues of this hearing. He still has those personality traits which were pointed out by the hearing officer. None of these traits lend itself to being a lawyer, and, in fact, prohibit it.
We all make these findings with sincere sympathy for Mr. Perrello and his family. He has spent many years in preparing for a profession for which he is totally unequipped. His wife and children have suffered immeasurably from his experiences and the resultant publicity attributed to them. Nonetheless, we have no choice except to make these findings.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
It is the conclusion of this Commission that for the reasons set forth above that Baigio J. Perrello be denied in his petition for reinstatement to the practice of law in the State of Indiana. We recommend that the suspension remain in full force and effect. (s) Rudolph V. Dawson, Chairman
(s) Ronald R. Fifer, Secretary
(s) Hon. Paul H. Buchanan, Jr., Member
(s) James G. McDonald, Member
This Court has carefully considered the foregoing Findings of its Disciplinary Commission which were unanimous and finds the same to be true and correct with respect to each factual determination and, therefore, adopts as its own findings the 'Findings and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Commission as to Petition for Reinstatement' as filed on June 13, 1975 and hereby unanimously denies the 'Petition for Reinstatement' as filed on November 22, 1974 by Biagio J. Perrello and orders that his suspension from the practice of law remain in full force and effect.
All Justices concur.