||Respondent was suspended by the Supreme Court on March 25, 1998 for one year and one day based upon his 1995 conviction of three counts of DUI. Prior to his suspension, Petitioner was transferred to inactive status in January 1997. ODC contested whether Petitioner had met his burden of proving his competency and learning in the law required for admission to practice law in Pennsylvania. Petitioner took more CLE credits than is required for reinstatement and testified that he reads legal periodicals, reporters, and advance sheets on line.
The majority of the Hearing Committee found that Petitioner had presented sufficient evidence that he had the requisite competency and learning in the law. The Board also found that Petitioner sufficiently met his burden of proving his competency and learning in the law. The Board found that while Petitioner did not work as a paralegal, as some suspended and disbarred attorneys do, such law related activity is not a requirement for reinstatement.
Petitioner admitted that he is an alcoholic. The Board found that Petitioner has been in recovery for alcoholism since July 2001 and has made "substantial and profound changes in the way he lives his life." Five character witnesses testified as to Petitioner's character and his successful management of his alcoholism since July 2001. Petitioner testified that he had done community service work in a literacy program from which he developed an interest in obtaining a teaching certificate and that he pursued that interest and in May 2006 was awarded a teaching certificate in secondary education. He testified that he was currently seeking employment as a teacher.