||The Petitioner applied for reinstatement from a three year suspension that began on August 27, 1996 and was based on the 1996 criminal conviction of the Respondent in the State of Indiana on felony charges arising from two deaths in a 1995 vehicular accident in which two young men died when the Petitionerís car hit their car from behind.
The Petitioner presented several character witnesses who testified favorably to both his professional and his personal character. A Certified Addictions Counselor testified to: her counseling of the Petitioner, both before and after she referred him for inpatient treatment related to the use of alcohol; her assessment of the Petitionerís efforts at overcoming his problems; and, about her good prognosis for his success both personally and professionally in the future. Other testimony was presented concerning the Petitionerís: efforts and success in overcoming his personal problems through counseling and changes in his lifestyle; acceptance of responsibility for both his actions that resulted in the conviction and the personal and professional consequences of those actions; activities and efforts before the conviction and during the suspension to fully comply with the requirements imposed on suspended attorneys; and, the Petitionerís efforts to prepare himself to reenter the practice of law.
The Petitioner testified concerning his lifestyle and the circumstances that lead to and culminated in the deaths of the two Indiana youths in the vehicular accident, his remorse for having caused the deaths, his recognition of his accountability for those deaths, his personal efforts and resolve to reform his lifestyle, his success in that regard, and efforts to maintain and better his legal competence while not transgressing any of the limitations imposed by the suspension.
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel, the Hearing Committee and the Disciplinary Board recommended that the Petitioner be reinstated. By order of October 11, 2001 the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued a Rule on the Petitioner pursuant to Rule 218(c)(6), Pa.R.D.E. to show cause why an order denying the reinstatement should not be entered. The basis of the Rule was that the Petitioner had not proven that his present resumption of the practice of law would not have a detrimental effect upon the integrity and standing of the Bar and the administration of justice and would not be subversive of the public interest. After consideration of the response to the Rule the Court issued an order of December 28, 2001 discharging the Rule and granting the petition for reinstatement.