FILED: December 7, 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

In the Matter of the Application of

PAUL D. GEAR,

for Reinstatement as an Active Member of the Oregon State Bar.

(SC S51991)

En Banc

On review of the decision of a trial panel of the Disciplinary Board.

Submitted on the record November 14, 2006.

Jeffrey D. Sapiro, Disciplinary Counsel, Lake Oswego, filed the brief for the Oregon State Bar.

No appearance for applicant.

PER CURIAM

The application for reinstatement is denied.

PER CURIAM

This is a lawyer reinstatement proceeding respecting a lawyer (applicant) who presently is under suspension from practice. The Oregon State Bar (Bar) filed a Statement of Objections to Reinstatement and, at a hearing before a trial panel of the Disciplinary Board, produced evidence that it believed demonstrated that applicant did not possess the requisite character and fitness to practice law, BR 8.1(b), or have the requisite learning and ability to practice law, BR 8.1(c). The Bar's objections and evidence were that applicant (1) had been suspended for misconduct on three separate occasions and had not demonstrated that he had addressed the causes of the misconduct; (2) had a history of physical or mental health conditions affecting his behavior; (3) had problems with anger control leading in one instance to his arrest on allegations of domestic violence; (4) had not been financially responsible; and (5) had not demonstrated that he had remained current in his knowledge of the law during the four years since his suspension.

Applicant had the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he met the standard for reinstatement. BR 8.12. Applicant did not file a responsive pleading, BR 8.10, and did not appear at the hearing or produce any evidence of the requisite character, fitness, or ability. Applicant also did not file a brief with this court, and, pursuant to ORAP 11.25(3)(a), the Bar waived oral argument and submitted the case on the record. After conducting the de novo review required by ORS 9.536(2), we agree with the trial panel that applicant did not sustain his burden of proof.

The application for reinstatement is denied.


Top of page Go home