DocketNumber: Disciplinary Board Docket No. 4 D.B. 76
Citation Numbers: 45 Pa. D. & C.3d 111
Judges: Keck
Filed Date: 1/17/1986
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 6/21/2022
member,
—
Pursuant to rule 218(c) (5) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement, the disciplinary board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania submits this report and recommendation to your ¡Honorable Court respecting the petition for reinstatement captioned above.
HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS
Petitioner was disbarred by order of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated March 23, 1978, following his conviction by jury trial in the United States District Court for the [ ] District of Pennsylvania of interstate transportation of stolen securities.
Two earlier petitions for reinstatment were denied. The instant petition was filed May 21, 1985. A hearing was held August 6, 1985, before hearing committee [ ] composed of [ ]. The report of the hearing committee was considered by the disciplinary board December 9, 1985. The board voted to adopt the report of hearing committee [ ] as its own and that report is included in toto herein by reference.
DISCUSSION
The securities that petitioner caused to be transported interstate were negotiable bonds that had disappeared from the [A] Bank of [ ] sometime between February 1968, and May 1969, when petitioner was employed as trust officer of the bank. Petitioner’s wife discovered the bonds in a sewing cabinet that belonged to her deceased mother soon
Petitioner served periods of incarceration and probation as sentenced by Judge [C] of the United States District Court. The statute of limitations precluded charging and prosecuting him with theft of the bonds.
Petitioner realized financial gain from the sale of some of the bonds. In 1974 [D] Company of [ ], having indemnified [A] Bank for its loss, obtained a judgment against petitioner of some $27,000 representing the value of wrongfully converted securities.
At the original hearing on the petition for discipline and at all hearings on petitions for reinstatement, petitioner has denied theft of the bonds. At the most recent hearing he offered to submit a theory regarding their disappearance but disciplinary counsel objected to speculation about the matter.
The circumstances leading to this petition for reinstatement are indeed bizarre. They constitute a mystery worthy of Conan Doyle. Hearing committee [ ] has pointed out that petitioner is not obliged to furnish a solution to the mystery to qualify for readmission to the bar. Absent proof of guilt we must presume petitioner’s innocence of theft.
Earlier petitions for reinstatement were rejected by the disciplinary board principally for the reasons that petitioner showed no remorse for having profited from the sale of securities that were not properly
RECOMMENDATION
This board concurs with hearing committee [ ] and recommends that petitioner be reinstated as a member of the bar of this commonwealth and that he be ordered to pay the costs incidental to the processing of his petition.
Messrs. McGinley, Douglas and Brown did not participate in the adjudication.
ORDER
NIX, C. J., And now, this January 31, 1986, upon consideration of the recommendation of the disciplinary board dated January 17, 1986, the petition for reinstatement is denied.
Pursuant to' rule 218(e), Pa.R.D.E., petitioner is directed to pay the expenses incurred by the board in the investigation and processing of the petition for reinstatement.