Petition of Eddleman

• Decision Date: 09 October 1969
• Docket Number: No. C,C
• Citation: 77 Wn.2d 42,459 P.2d 387
• Parties: Petition of William R. EDDLEMAN for Reinstatement as a Member of the Washington State Bar Association. D. 2504.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

Page 42

77 Wn.2d 42

459 P.2d 387

Petition of William R. EDDLEMAN for Reinstatement as a

Member of the Washington State Bar Association.

No. C.D. 2504.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

Oct. 9, 1969.

Robert O. Wells, Jr., Washington State Bar Assn., Seattle, for Bar.

Alfred J. Schweppe, Seattle, for petitioner.

PER CURIAM.

William R. Eddleman seeks reinstatement of his right to practice law in the state of Washington. He was disbarred by this court on February 13, 1964. In re Eddleman, 63 Wash.2d 775, 389 P.2d 296 (1964). A detailed review of the transgressions which culminated in disbarment are fully discussed in Eddleman, supra. The misconduct was serious. The explanations and defenses given by petitioner in those proceedings were evasive and super technical. The nature of the petitioner's prior action which resulted in disbarment and his defenses thereto evidenced a cavalier attitude toward the spirit of the canons of ethics and principles of fair and honest dealing. This is important to us now because a major consideration in reinstatement proceedings is whether the petitioner has affirmatively shown that he has overcome those weaknesses that produced his earlier misconduct.

We consider Mr. Eddleman's petition in light of certain recognized general principles: First, our concern in these matters is for the interest of the public and justice to the legal profession, as well as fairness to the applicant. Second, the burden is upon the applicant seeking reinstatement to affirmatively show that he possesses the qualifications and meets the relevant requirements for admission to the practice of law, and that his reinstatement will not be detrimental to either the integrity and standing of the bar, the administration of justice, or the public interest. The burden is properly a heavy one. Having been found unfit to hold the public trust that is placed in attorneys, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to clearly demonstrate that he has become worthy of that trust. If doubt remains, fairness to the public and the bar requires that reinstatement be denied. Third, the findings and recommendation of the Board of Governors, though advisory only and not conclusive, are entitled to considerable weight.

We have stated and applied these general principles in In re Simmons, 71 Wash.2d 316, 428 P.2d 582 (1967); In re Seijas, 63 Wash.2d 865, 389 P.2d 652 (1964). In those cases we enumerated certain of the factors which are to be considered in assessing an applicant's present fitness for reinstatement: (a) the applicant's character, standing, and professional reputation in the community in which he resided and practiced prior to disbarment; (b) the ethical standards which he observed in the practice of law; (c) the nature and character of the charge for which he was disbarred; (d) the sufficiency of the punishment undergone in connection therewith, and the making or failure to make restitution where required; (e) his attitude, conduct, and reformation subsequent to disbarment; (f) the time that has elapsed since disbarment; (g) his current proficiency in the law; and (h) the sincerity, frankness, and truthfulness of the applicant in presenting and discussing the factors relating to his disbarment and reinstatement.

As a final premise, we note with approval the following language of the Supreme Court of California:

There can, of course, be no absolute guarantee that petitioner will never engage in misconduct again. But if...