In the Matter of William J. Peotrowski
No. 97-499 - M.P.
SUPREME COURT OF RHODE ISLAND
706 A.2d 1315;
1998 R.I. LEXIS 55
March 4, 1998, Decided
March 4, 1998, Filed
PRIOR HISTORY:
[**1] Appeal from Disciplinary Court. David D. Curtin, Chief Disciplinary Counsel.
COUNSEL: David D. Curtin, Chief Disciplinary Counsel, For Petitioner.
William J. Peotrowski - Pro Se, For Respondent.
JUDGES: Weisberger, C.J., Lederberg, Flanders, Goldberg, JJ., Concurring. Bourcier, J.
Not Participating.
OPINION:
[*1316]
OPINION
PER CURIAM. This matter is before the court on a petition for
reinstatement to the
practice of law. The petitioner, William J. Peotrowski, Jr. (Peotrowski), was
disbarred by order of this court on November 17, 1982. This
disbarment was a result of his
criminal conviction after his entry of a plea of nolo contendere to eight counts of obtaining
money under false pretenses and uttering and publishing.
Carter v. Peotrowski, 452 A.2d 632 (R.I. 1982).
On September 12, 1997, petitioner filed the instant application for
reinstatement in accordance with the provisions of Article III, Rule 16, of the Supreme
Court
Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Pursuant to that rule, certain procedural requirements must be
complied with as a precondition to this court's consideration of a
reinstatement petition. These procedural requirements include payment of a $ 500
[**2] filing fee, the completion and submission of a
reinstatement questionnaire with this court's
disciplinary counsel, and attainment of a
passing grade on the Multi-State Professional Responsibility Examination within thirty days
prior to the filing of the
reinstatement petition. Peotrowski has
complied with the procedural requirements necessary for consideration of his
application. n1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n1 Peotrowski obtained his
passing grade on the Multi-State Professional Responsibility Examination more than thirty
days prior to the filing of his petition. He has requested a waiver of the
thirty-day requirement. The waiver of this provision is granted in this
application.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Compliance with the procedural aspects of Rule 16 is only the first step in the
process of
reinstatement. That rule also establishes the substantive criteria that must be met by a
suspended or
disbarred attorney seeking restoration of the privileges of practicing law. Such an
applicant also bears the burden of:
"demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence
[**3] that he or she has the moral
qualifications, competency and learning in
law required for admission to practice law in this State and that his or her
resumption of the
practice of law within the State will be neither detrimental to the integrity and standing of
the Bar or the administration of justice nor subversive of the public interest." Article III, Rule 16(c).
In this jurisdiction an attorney who has been
disbarred from the
practice of law may not apply for
reinstatement for a period of at least five years from the effective date of the
disbarment. (Article III, Rule 16(b)). This five-year period constitutes the minimum
length of time necessary for a
disbarred attorney to develop and demonstrate sufficient
rehabilitation to resume the
practice of law. When an attorney has engaged in repeated acts or a calculated series of acts
designed to corrupt the administration of justice, the showing of present
fitness may require a lengthier period of
rehabilitation.
In re Romano, 615 A.2d 476, 477 (R.I. 1992).
The petitioner has an extensive history of engaging in dishonest conduct. The
basis for his
criminal conviction is that he fraudulently represented himself to the General
[**4] Treasurer of the State of Rhode Island as the attorney for claimants of
abandoned funds that had come into the state's possession, obtained those
funds, and
converted them to his
own use. He also had settled a personal-injury claim on behalf of a client without the
client's knowledge or consent,
forged the client's name to a release and had the
forged signature notarized, received funds on behalf of the client, and
converted those funds to his
own use. This conduct led to his
disbarment
[*1317] and to his incarceration in the Adult Correctional Institutions.
On December 18, 1987, Peotrowski made his first application for
reinstatement to the
practice of law. That application was referred to this court's
disciplinary board (board) with the directive for the board to hold an evidentiary hearing
on the petition for
reinstatement and also on any pending
complaints of professional
misconduct. At that time there were three complaints pending before the board.
The results of those hearings are highly relevant to the present petition. The
board determined that petitioner had engaged in the unlawful practice of law
while
disbarred, that he had misrepresented facts to the courts of this state with
[**5] the intent to deceive the courts, and that he had not been truthful in his own
testimony before the board. The petitioner had also used the name of a
deceased person in connection with petitions filed in the courts of this state involving real
estate transactions. This use of the name of a
deceased person was a subterfuge perpetrated upon the courts to cloak petitioner's involvement
in these transactions.
Relying upon those findings, the board made the following pertinent observation
regarding petitioner:
"[He] is intelligent, knowledgeable and imaginative. Regrettably, however, he is
not honest." It was the
recommendation of the board at that time that petitioner never be allowed to practice law
again. This court accepted the factual findings
made by the board and denied the
reinstatement application.
Carter v. Peotrowski, 568 A.2d 1032, 1033 (R.I. 1990).
Subsequent to those proceedings, the board heard evidence of additional
misconduct by petitioner regarding his conversion of life insurance proceeds properly
belonging to an estate for which he served as executor and attorney. The board
determined that this conduct involved dishonesty, fraud,
deceit, or misrepresentation
[**6] in violation of
Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility; was conduct
prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of
Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(5); and constituted failure to deliver funds promptly to the client
in violation of
Disciplinary Rule 9-102(B)(4). n2 On July 10, 1992, this court entered an order that the board's
decision and
recommendation in that matter would be considered should Peotrowski apply for readmission to
the bar.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n2 The
Rules of Professional Conduct replaced the Code of Professional Responsibility effective November 15, 1988.
Disciplinary proceedings instituted pursuant to the Supreme Court
Rules of Professional Conduct where the alleged act or omission occurred prior to November 15, 1988, were
governed by the standards set forth in the Code of Professional Responsibility.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This court's
disciplinary counsel has submitted a report to the court, recommending against Peotrowski's
reinstatement to the
practice of law. n3 That report sets forth petitioner's
[**7] prior history of
misconduct and notes that petitioner practiced
deceit in the information provided in support of his application.
Disciplinary Counsel concluded that Peotrowski continues to exhibit the same lack of
honesty that led to his prior discipline.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n3 Rule (5)(b) of Article III of the Supreme Court
Rules of Disciplinary Procedure provides in pertinent part,
"[Disciplinary] Counsel shall have the power and
duty: * * * (4) to appear at hearings before this Court with respect to motions for
reinstatement by
suspended or
disbarred attorneys, to cross-examine witnesses testifying in support of the motion and
to marshal available evidence, if any, in opposition thereto * * *."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This court afforded Peotrowski the opportunity to appear before the court to
present evidence and argument in support of his petition. On the basis of
Peotrowski's presentation, this court does not hesitate to conclude that he
lacks the necessary moral
qualifications to be
readmitted to the
practice of law. In his attempt to explain
[**8] his past conduct, he has made it abundantly clear that he fails to appreciate,
or indeed to comprehend, the wrongfulness of those acts. In denying
Peotrowski's previous application for
reinstatement, we noted the following:
"It is apparent that this applicant has learned nothing from his experience and,
unchanged, seeks our permission to return to the
practice of law. Mindful of our
duty to the public we cannot permit this."
Carter v. Peotrowski, 568 A.2d at 1033.
The petitioner appears before us older but not wiser. He has failed to meet his
burden of proving that he presently possesses
[*1318] the moral
qualifications or
fitness to be
readmitted to the
practice of law. Accordingly the petition for
reinstatement is denied.
Justice Bourcier did not participate.
