In Re Reinstatement of Porter
On January 5, 1990, petitioner David K. Porter was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law, with the right to reapply for reinstatement in no less than six months time. Porter’s suspension was based upon charges of falsification of will documents, false swearing under oath, misappropriation of client funds, and mismanagement of trust accounts. Porter claimed mitigation by psychological disability.
In re Porter,
In July 1990, Porter applied for reinstatement. A panel of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board held two hearings on this matter, issuing findings and conclusions recommending that Porter not be reinstated. The panel concluded that Porter had not shown by clear and convincing evidence that he has recognized his past misconduct or taken sufficient steps to see that it does not recur.
After the first of the two hearings, Porter mailed a four-page, single-spaced typewritten newsletter to about 30 of his former clients. The rambling and disjointed letter questioned the impartiality of the panel chair and contained a variety of self-serving statements which mischaracterized Porter’s previous, admitted misconduct.
At about that same time, though represented by counsel, Porter began a series of unusual, personal contacts with panel members, including a visit to the home of one panel member. Porter requested that the panel hold a second hearing because of alleged ex parte contacts between the panel and the Office of the Director of Lawyers Professional Responsibility. 1 After the second hearing, the panel issued supplemental findings of fact and conclusions, affirming its earlier recommendation that Porter’s petition for reinstatement be denied.
In general, an attorney applying for reinstatement must “establish by clear and convincing evidence that she or he has undergone such a moral change as now to render him a fit person to enjoy the public confidence and trust once forfeited.”
In re Hanson,
In this case, we required by our order of suspension clear and convincing evidence “that [Porter] has recognized his past misconduct and taken steps to see that it does not recur.”
Porter,
We also required Porter to prove by clear and convincing evidence “that he has overcome any psychological disability which would prevent him from competently and ethically practicing law.”
Id.
The panel found both that Porter’s bipolar disorder was not the cause of the conduct for which he was suspended (as we held,
To protect the public, while leaving Porter the opportunity to reenter the practice of law when he has shown fitness for practice in all respects, we order:
1.that David K. Porter remain suspended from the practice of law, with leave to apply for reinstatement;
2. that David K. Porter meet all the requirements of our January 5, 1990, order before reinstatement; and
3. that David K. Porter establish by the testimony of witnesses other than himself, to a clear and convincing standard of proof, that he has conducted himself with stability in his personal and business life, and with appropriate respect for the legal system of this state.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Notes
. Porter’s concern apparently stemmed from learning that documents prepared by the panel were being typed by clerical staff of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, because the panel chair, a volunteer panel member and solo practitioner, had limited clerical resources available in his own office. We are confident that revised procedures adopted by the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility will avoid any appearance of ex parte contact in future matters. Furthermore, we are confident that no prejudice resulted to Porter in this case.