||Petitioner, who was Disbarred on Consent by Order of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court dated May 26, 1989, was granted reinstatement; Petitioner was previously denied reinstatement by Order of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court dated July 25, 2003.
Petitionerís disbarment was based on his having misappropriated client funds to finance an investment scheme through a businessman who was overseas. Petitionerís misconduct occurred in New Jersey, where he maintained his practice of law. Following Petitionerís disbarment, he was criminally prosecuted in New Jersey and pleaded guilty to charges of theft by failure to make required disposition of property received and theft by deception.
The Disciplinary Board addressed the Keller threshold inquiry and concluded that Petitionerís misconduct was not so egregious as to preclude his reinstatement. The Disciplinary Board also concluded that Petitioner met his burden pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 218(c)(3)(i).
The Disciplinary Board opined that Petitioner presented sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish that all of the clients who suffered monetary losses as a result of Petitionerís misconduct were made whole.
At the reinstatement hearing, Petitioner also presented evidence that he had satisfied all of the conditions of his sentence and that his probationary term was terminated by the court. Petitioner also: expressed remorse over his misconduct; presented evidence that he had been performing paralegal work since January 2000; established that he had maintained his learning in the law during his disbarment; and offered the testimony of several character witnesses.