Disciplinary Reporter Case Digest

Attorney ID 29536
Attorney Name Akins, Sr., Bruce R.
DBP Docket No. 58 DB 1989
Supreme Court Docket No. 771 D.D. No. 2
County Philadelphia
Disciplinary Counsel Anthony P. Sodroski
Counsel for Respondent Wallace L. Walker
Decision Date 2000-08-01
Effective Date
Case Digest In 1997 Petitioner filed his second petition for reinstatement FROM a three-year suspension imposed in 1990 as a result of his HAVING commingled client funds, failing to release entrusted funds to a medical provider, and failing to respond to inquiries FROM the medical provider. Petitioner filed his initial petition for reinstatement in 1993 and withdrew it in 1995. The Disciplinary Board recommended denial of the petition on the basis that Petitioner did not present sufficient evidence of his moral qualifications. Petitioner presented only one character witness, his employer, who testified that he had made it a policy not to get involved in affairs of his employees. Hence, the Board had no basis upon which to evaluate what Petitioner had been doing in the previous nine years to rehabilitate himself. The Board said that the lack of character evidence was fatal to Petitionerís case because the record indicated Petitionerís lack of organization and his inability to get his personal life in order. Respondent presented evidence of Petitionerís alleged mishandling of a legal matter around the time of his suspension, a civil jury verdict finding that Petitioner or someone acting on his behalf had intentionally set fire to his home, adverse newspaper publicity pertaining to the fire, inaccurate responses in his initial and second petitions, an outstanding IRS obligation, and a discharge in bankruptcy. The Board declined to assign any weight to these factors because the Board found that they were either too remote in time or immaterial to the issues before the Board.
Rule Violation(s) N/A
Discipline Imposed Reinstatement Denied
Points of Law An event occurring after suspension but many years before the reinstatement petition is filed may be too remote to be considered as a basis for denial of the petition. Mistakes and omissions in the reinstatement petition will not prevent readmission to the bar if they are explained or are of little consequence to the substance of the petition. An outstanding tax obligation and discharge in bankruptcy are not substantial issues that reflect adversely on present competence to practice law.
Report/Opinion not available