with whom COMES V.C.J,, joins, dissenting:
126 "I respectfully dissent to' the reinstatement of the Respondent. This Respondent has a felony conviction for a very serious crime. The Respondent does not meet, by clear and convincing evidence, the very strict test set out in Rule 11.4 RGDP which requires that "An applicant seeking such reinstatement will be required to present stronger proof of qualifications than one seeking admission for the first time" (emphasis added). How does an applicant with Respondent's record have, by clear and convine-ing evidence, stronger qualifications than one seeking admission for the first time? Which new applicant has weaker qualifications than this Respondent? Would this Respondent, with his felony record, be admitted to the bar . if he were a first time applicant? Respondent has not, by clear and convincing evidence, shown himself to have stronger proof of qualifications than a first time applicant. This Court has an obligation to safeguard the interests of the public and to protect the integrity of the Courts and the legal profession. If Rule 11.4 RGDP is to have any meaning or credibility at all,; this Respondent's application for reinstatement should be denied. His qualifications are not stronger than one seeking admission for the first time."