In re Matter of the Reinstatement of William P. Tunell, Jr.

Summary

The Oklahoma Supreme Court denied William P. Tunell, Jr.'s petition for reinstatement to the Oklahoma Bar Association. Although the Court found that Tunell satisfied procedural requirements and demonstrated competency and lack of unauthorized practice, it concluded that he had not shown by clear and convincing evidence sufficient treatment, rehabilitation, or present good moral character and fitness.

Holdings

1. Tunell established that he satisfied the procedural requirements, had not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, and possessed the competency and learning in law required for reinstatement without re-examination, but he failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he possessed the present good moral character and fitness necessary for reinstatement.
2. The Oklahoma Supreme Court independently reviews the record de novo and retains the ultimate responsibility for determining the facts, weighing the evidence, and assessing witness credibility; the Professional Responsibility Tribunal's recommendation is advisory.
3. In addition to the express requirements of Rule 11, the Court considers present moral fitness, recognition of past wrongdoing and its effect on the profession, rehabilitation, the seriousness of past misconduct, post-resignation conduct, character and maturity at resignation, and the time elapsed since resignation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Tunell established by clear and convincing evidence that he satisfied the requirements for reinstatement to the Oklahoma Bar Association.
2. Whether Tunell demonstrated the present good moral character, fitness, rehabilitation, and treatment necessary for reinstatement.
3. Whether the Professional Responsibility Tribunal's recommendation for reinstatement should be accepted on de novo review.

Disposition

denied