| Case Digest |
This file involves a petition for reinstatement from inactive status. While Petitioner was on inactive status he worked for a private corporation. For five years after going on inactive status, Petitioner performed legal services, including transactional work, lawyering contracts, transactions, relationships between the corporation and third parties, and serving as in-house counsel in litigation matters that were handled primarily by outside counsel. After five years one of the company administrators was reviewing the licensure for all of the attorneys who work for the company and discovered that Petitioner was on inactive status. The administrator brought this to Petitioner’s attention and asked Petitioner, and Petitioner agreed, to resign his position.
At the hearing Petitioner referred to poor health and depression (without presenting doctors’ reports or testimony), and claimed that he did not understand why his transfer to inactive status for failing to take CLE courses prevented him from practicing law. The Disciplinary Board recommended reinstatement. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania entered a rule to show cause why an order denying reinstatement should not be entered and directed Petitioner to set forth his precise understanding of the term "inactive status" prior to October 2000 and directed Petitioner to set forth the reason why his Special Reinstatement Questionnaire listed his 1995-2000 practice with the corporation as occurring at a time when he was on "active" status. Petitioner and ODC filed responses, and the Court entered an order without opinion denying reinstatement.
Thereafter Petitioner filed an Application for Reargument/Clarification, and ODC filed a response. The Court denied the Application for Reargument/Clarification. |
