State of Nebraska ex rel. C. A. Sorensen, Attorney General, Plaintiff, v.
Lawrence B. Goldman, Defendant
No. 28593
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA
182 Neb. 126;
153 N.W.2d 451;
1967 Neb. LEXIS 455
October 13, 1967, Filed
PRIOR HISTORY:
[***1]
Application for
reinstatement. See
127 Neb. 340, 255 N. W. 32, for original opinion.
DISPOSITION: Denied.
HEADNOTES:
1.
Attorney and Client. The court disbarring an attorney has
inherent power to
reinstate him. To
reinstate a
disbarred attorney means to again
invest him with the right to practice law, but it is not a
revocation or
vacation of the order of
disbarment.
2.
Attorney and Client. The primary factor in the
reinstatement of a
disbarred lawyer is whether or not the applicant, notwithstanding his former
misconduct, is now fit to be admitted to the
practice of law and that there is
reasonable ground to believe that this present
fitness will
permanently continue in the future.
3.
Attorney and Client. In considering an application for the
reinstatement of a
disbarred attorney, this court owes a
solemn
duty to the public and
legal profession which must be performed without regard to
feelings of
sympathy, the
stigma of
disbarment, and the asserted severity of punishment.
4.
Attorney and Client. In addition to proof of existing
good moral character, an applicant for
reinstatement must have the
same
qualifications and be otherwise
eligible for admission
[***2] to the bar as in the case of an
original application.
5.
Attorney and Client. Under the law of this state, this court is without authority to
reinstate a
disbarred attorney who is a
nonresident of Nebraska, even though all other
qualifications for
reinstatement are established.
COUNSEL: Clarence A. H. Meyer, Attorney General, and Gerald S. Vitamvas, for plaintiff.
William J. Whistler and John P. Glynn, Jr., for defendant.
JUDGES: White, C. J., Carter, Spencer, Boslaugh, Smith, McCown, and Newton, JJ.
OPINIONBY: CARTER
OPINION:
[*127]
[**453] This is an application by Lawrence B. Goldman for
reinstatement as a member of the bar of this state.
Goldman was admitted to the bar of Nebraska in 1921. In 1934, while engaged in
the
practice of law in Omaha, he was
disbarred for violating the rules of professional legal ethics. See
State ex rel. Sorensen v. Goldman, 127 Neb. 340, 255 N. W. 32. In 1954, Goldman made application for
reinstatement which this court denied. In 1963, a second application for
reinstatement was made and it, too, was denied. In 1967, a third application was made, the
same being the application presently before this court.
The application shows that Goldman
[***3] has not engaged in the
practice of law since his
disbarment. He also asserts that he does not intend to practice law in the future and that
he desires
reinstatement to clear his name and to remove the
stigma of the
disbarment order. He asserts also that he has been
disbarred for a period of 33 years and that such period of time constitutes adequate
punishment for the breach of professional ethics committed. In an application
for
reinstatement to the
practice of law, this court owes a
solemn
duty to the public and the
legal profession which must be performed without regard to
feelings of
sympathy for the applicant.
In re O'Connell, 64 Cal. App. 673, 222 P. 625;
In re O'Keefe, 62 Mont. 534, 205 P. 667. A mere sentimental belief that a
disbarred lawyer has been punished enough will not justify his restoration to the
practice of law. The primary concern is: Is the applicant, notwithstanding his
[*128] former
misconduct, now fit to be admitted to the
practice of law and is there
reasonable ground to believe that his present
fitness will
permanently continue in the future?
Reinstatement after
disbarment should be difficult
rather than easy.
In re Morton, 75 Cal. App. 497, 243
[***4] P. 32.
The court that has
disbarred an attorney has the
inherent power to
reinstate him to the
practice of law. Such
reinstatement means that he will be again invested with the right to engage in the
practice of law, but it is not a
revocation or
vacation of the order of
disbarment. It does not relate back in point of time to the
disbarment, but merely
invests him with the rights,
duties, and obligations of an attorney at law from the date of
reinstatement. Where a
disbarred attorney, since his
disbarment, has demonstrated by rectitude of conduct that he is
possessed of
moral character sufficient to again be a member of the bar, he may be
reinstated.
In re Salsbury, 217 Mich. 260, 186 N. W. 404.
The application is supported by a showing that the applicant, while a
resident of Oklahoma for many years, has by his good conduct indicated that he has
overcome the unethical habits
possessed at the time of his
disbarment and regained the high
moral character required to be admitted to the
practice of law. The showing includes the recommendations of eminent judges, lawyers,
businessmen, and lay citizens as to his present
good character and reputation in the communities in which he has
[***5] lived since his
disbarment. We hold that the proof of
good character is adequate to establish that his
moral character and ethical conduct is sufficient to warrant
reinstatement.
The evidence shows, however, that the applicant is and has been for many years
a
resident of the State of Oklahoma. It is the law of this state that this court has no
authority to
reinstate a
nonresident to the
practice of law in this state. Aside from his moral reformation, an applicant for
reinstatement must otherwise be
eligible for admission to the bar as in an
original application.
[*129] One of the requisites is that
[**454] the applicant shall be a
bona fide resident of the state the same as when first admitted to the bar. See,
Ex parte Marshall, 165 Miss. 523, 147 So. 791; In re Salsbury,
supra.
The Rules of the Supreme Court governing the admission of attorneys provides in
part as follows:
"An applicant for admission to the bar must be a citizen of the United States
and must show that he is a
bona fide resident of the State of Nebraska at the time of filing his application." Revised Rules of the Supreme Court of Nebraska, Part II, Rule 2. The
requirements for
reinstatement being
[***6] the same as for original admission to the bar, the defendant, irrespective of
adequate proof of present
good moral character, cannot be
reinstated since residence in this state is a necessary
qualification. Solely on the ground that applicant is not a
resident of the State of Nebraska, we must deny the application of Goldman for
reinstatement as an attorney at law in this state. The application, therefore, is denied.
Denied.
