The documents were not made public when presented to the tribunal by the New Zealand Law Society, at a hearing in Dunedin last week, and have been released with names blanked out.
One, from the principal of a Tauranga law firm, acknowledged Mr Guest's "stature" in the Dunedin community but considered it was irrelevant and should be disregarded by the tribunal.
"A good lawyer does not have to be a public person and being a public person does not make a good lawyer."
The letter writer considered the "dishonesty" that led to Mr Guest being struck off in 2001 was only one of his "failings".
"There was the misleading of other lawyers, and other issues."
A senior lecturer in law at the University of Otago wrote that Mr Guest gave a legal ethics lecture in 2002 that reflected "very poorly" on him.
The letter claimed Mr Guest advised students not to trust clients, colleagues or the law society and also breached the confidentiality of the client involved in the matter that led to Mr Guest being struck off.
"I regarded this as a shocking breach of confidentiality."
Another lawyer considered Mr Guest's removal from the roll for breaches of professional conduct at the "very worst end of the spectrum".
He said Mr Guest's role as a newspaper columnist, after he was struck off, had shown he was not on a "path of redemption".
"Mr Guest was, or should have been, acutely aware that many members of the profession found it abhorrent that the Otago Daily Times would publish a regular column attributed to Mr Guest as a 'former lawyer'."
The writer also found "galling" a suggestion in media interviews that Mr Guest was the victim of a "tall poppy syndrome".
"Such comments in my view dishonour the profession and trivialise the seriousness of the offending."
Another letter questioned Mr Guest's "altruistic" motives for being involved in public service rather than "the income attached".
"I have serious doubts about his suitability to hold public office."
At the hearing, Mr Guest referred to some of the writers of 17 letters of objection as being his political rivals, "anti stadium" and "anti fluoride". One he referred to as "the neighbour from hell", one as "a liar" and one as having "a hatred of councillors bordering on obsessive".
Mr Guest presented the tribunal with 177 "letters or expressions of support" from "very many senior and respected members of the community".
When approached about the letters yesterday, Mr Guest said he regarded the matter as sub judice and had no comment.
