||Petitioner, who was disbarred on consent by Order of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court dated January 8, 1993, was denied reinstatement.
Petitionerís disbarment was based on his having misappropriated client funds in the amount of $3,872.38. These proceeds originated from the sale of a decedentís house in an estate matter that Respondent was handling on behalf of his client.
Petitioner was also disbarred by consent in New Jersey by Order of the Supreme Court of New Jersey dated October 26, 1992. Petitionerís New Jersey disbarment was based on his having misappropriated client funds in two personal injury cases, misrepresenting to those clients the status of their cases to conceal his misconduct, and failing to maintain the required accounting records for his trust and business accounts.
The Disciplinary Board addressed the Keller threshold inquiry and concluded that Petitionerís misconduct was not so egregious as to preclude his reinstatement. However, the Disciplinary Board found that Petitioner had not engaged in any meaningful rehabilitation since his disbarment; therefore, it was determined that Petitioner had failed to meet his burden pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 218(c)(3)(i).
The Disciplinary Board opined that Petitioner, despite having financial means, failed to make any good faith efforts to satisfy his tax liability with the I.R.S. in the amount of $53,000. The Disciplinary Board also found that Petitioner had: filed a Reinstatement Questionnaire that contained errors and omissions; failed to fully reimburse his client for the monies he misappropriated; shown little or no remorse for his misconduct; presented a single character witness who was unfamiliar with Petitionerís New Jersey misconduct and did not know any of Petitionerís neighbors and friends; and not kept current on Pennsylvania law aside from taking the required minimum number of CLE courses