In re Freedman

Summary

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's Disciplinary Board recommended reinstating Allan Hyman Freedman, who had been disbarred on consent in 1992 following drug-related criminal convictions. The court granted reinstatement on April 29, 2003, finding that Freedman had demonstrated the required moral qualifications, legal competency, rehabilitation, and lack of detriment to the public or the integrity of the bar.

Holdings

1. Freedman's drug-related misconduct, although serious, was not so egregious or offensive as to preclude reinstatement.
2. Freedman proved by clear and convincing evidence that he possessed the moral qualifications, competency, and learning in the law necessary to practice law in Pennsylvania.
3. Freedman's resumption of practice would not be detrimental to the integrity or standing of the bar, the administration of justice, or the public interest.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Freedman's underlying criminal and disciplinary misconduct was so egregious that it precluded consideration of his petition for reinstatement.
2. Whether Freedman proved by clear and convincing evidence that he possessed the moral qualifications, competency, and learning in the law required for practice in Pennsylvania.
3. Whether Freedman's resumption of practice would be detrimental to the integrity or standing of the bar, the administration of justice, or the public interest.

Disposition

other