 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Reinstatement of Hanlon12/7/1993
is voluntary commitment to the alcohol rehabilitation program:
"I did the thirty days in Little Rock and I thought that might appease the courts and everybody that, you know, maybe I was on the road to recovery, but it ended up I still got ninety days. . . ."
In addition, petitioner has failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that he has maintained his knowledge and competency in the law. Petitioner has not attended any Continuing Legal Education courses and has not kept up subscription to the Bar Journal. Petitioner has written some briefs for other attorneys and stated that he occasionally studied legal issues in the law library. Applicant stated that the reason he has not attended CLE courses is due to the cost. Petitioner showed that he has remained informed in the criminal law area, but aside from some brief-writing, he has not worked in a law-related job.
Rule 11.4, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, provides that an applicant for reinstatement must establish affirmatively that, if readmitted, applicant's conduct will conform to the high standards required of a member of the Bar. Considering all the requirements for reinstatement and considering the heavy burden on a petitioner to prove by clear and convincing evidence, we find that reinstatement should be denied. The Oklahoma Bar Association has filed application for costs to be assessed against the petitioner. Under the evidence presented in this case the application is denied.
PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT DENIED.
HODGES, C.J., LAVENDER, V.C.J., and OPALA, ALMA WILSON and WATT, JJ., concur.
SIMMS and SUMMERS, JJ., not participating.
|