Loading

Disciplinary Reporter Case Digest

Attorney ID 40445
Attorney Name Deliman , Walter D.
DBP Docket No. 91 DB 1990
Supreme Court Docket No. 852 DD No. 2
County Lackawanna
Disciplinary Counsel J. Frank Dougherty
Counsel for Respondent None
Decision Date 2010-11-15
Effective Date 2010-11-15
Case Digest This is a Petition for Reinstatement from an Order of March 31, 1991, suspending Respondent, now Petitioner, for one year and one day. Discipline in excess of one year requires a formal reinstatement proceeding. The suspension was based on Petitionerís lack of diligence, misrepresentation, alteration of a legal document and incompetent representation involving a no-fault divorce and an appeal from a driverís license suspension. During his suspension, Petitioner was arrested three times for DUI. The first was in 1993 and he successfully completed an ARD program. In 1997 Petitioner entered guilty pleas to two DUI offenses and was sentenced to 90 days of home confinement followed by 18 months of supervised release. He lost his driverís license for six years. The Disciplinary Board found that Petitioner had learned form his mistakes, as evidenced by his regular attendance at AA meetings and his 10 year abstinence from alcohol for more than 10 years. Petitioner expressed remorse for the acts leading to his suspension and for the difficulties he caused his clients. Petitioner has worked for the IRS since 2001. Currently he is a tax law specialist, which position does not require that one be an attorney. He intends to remain in that employment. He is current with his CLE requirements. In 2007 Petitioner received a Masterís in Taxation. Office of Disciplinary Counsel did not oppose the reinstatement and the Hearing Committee recommended reinstatement. The Disciplinary Board found that Petitioner had demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that he possesses the moral qualifications, competency and learning in law for reinstatement to the practice of law, and that his resumption of the practice of law will be neither detrimental to the standing and integrity of the bar or the administration of justice nor subversive of the public interest, as are required by Rule 218(c)(3), Pa. R.D.E.. By Order of November 15, 2010, the Court accepted the Boardís recommendation and reinstated Petitioner.
Rule Violation(s)
Discipline Imposed Reinstatement Granted
Points of Law Reinstatement may be granted when a Petitioner presents evidence that meets the requirements of Rule 218(c)(3). As noted by the Board, a reinstatement proceeding is an inquiry to determine the Petitionerís professional and moral fitness to resume the practice of law. Of concern are the nature of the transgressions resulting in the discipline as well as the success of any efforts at rehabilitation.
Report/Opinion Download