Mr Guest's application is being heard, in Dunedin, by the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal, chaired by Judge Dale Clarkson.
The New Zealand Law Society, which opposes Mr Guest's application, is represented by barrister Len Andersen.
Mr Guest, a former district court judge, was struck off in December 2001 on two counts of professional misconduct involving lying to a client when he told her she had been declined legal aid, and taking $25,000 more of her funds for his costs than he was entitled to.
At yesterday's hearing, Mr Guest said he had "put my interests ahead of of my client's . . . that was the obscenity that led to me to being struck off".
He was "ashamed" of the circumstances of his wrongdoing and would never allow it to happen again.
"If I am restored to the roll, my conduct at all levels of my private and professional life will be exemplary."
Mr Guest outlined a legal career spanning almost 30 years.
He had represented 10,000 clients and noted only three of the 17 letters opposing his reinstatement came from former clients.
Since being struck off, Mr Guest said he had undertaken a considerable amount of community service and had attended 1700 public service meetings.
Mr Guest had been elected twice to the city council.
"The people of Dunedin knew I had been struck off."
Mr Guest said he was 51 when he was struck off and will be 59 in a fortnight.
"I have lost my 50s because of what I did. My actions were disgraceful . . ."
He was "haunted" that his late father, a lawyer, had a son who had been struck off.
Two of his four children were now lawyers.
"They will not let me put one foot out of line."
He produced 177 letters of support for his reinstatement including one from Dunedin Mayor and former president of the Otago District Law Society, Peter Chin, who had "no objection" to Mr Guest being reinstated.
Mr Guest responded to a "melancholy list" of five allegations against him in a law society affidavit.
He denied being "sloppy" and uncaring about his clients in the days after being struck off - denying he left open the door to his office, containing his clients' files.
He denied he lacked remorse for what he had done and that he did not accept being struck off.
He did accept that he said in media interviews after being struck off that the tribunal got it wrong.
"I beg you to accept the devastation of my loss in the 48 hours after my being struck off . . . yes I did say those things."
However, he pointed out, that by the time of a High Court hearing six months later, where his appeal was dismissed, he was no longer making that claim.
Mr Guest described accusations of perjury at a previous tribunal hearing as "monstrous", allegations of criminal fraud as merely an example of "sloppiness" and allegations of telling a lie to a former client 32 years ago as "a breakdown in communication".
Under cross-examination by Mr Andersen, Mr Guest was asked about the matter in 2001 which led to his being struck off.
Mr Andersen listed those Mr Guest had lied to: his client, a "quasi-judicial" body, an arbitrator and a lawyer.
In each case Mr Guest agreed.
After his appeal failed, Mr Guest "realised the enormity" of the way he had "manipulated" the paperwork to ensure he got $75,000 rather than the $50,000 to which he was entitled.
"That was no way for a lawyer to act."
Mr Andersen suggested Mr Guest minimised his wrongdoing at an ethics class for student lawyers in 2002.
Mr Guest said he could not remember a great deal of what he said, but had told the class of the charges against him, held up the code of conduct for lawyers and pointed out their duty to clients.
He denied claiming he was a victim of the "tall poppy" syndrome, that students should not trust the law society and that his offending was not serious enough to justify being struck off.
Mr Andersen and members of the tribunal questioned Mr Guest closely over the motive for the family holiday home in Wanaka being "vested" in Mr Guest's wife's name at a time when Mr Guest was close to bankruptcy with liabilities of about $500,000 and assets of about $2000.
A High Court-approved formal debt payment proposal returned 10c in the dollar to creditors.
The holiday house continues to be owned by Mrs Guest's family trust, of which Mr Guest is a beneficiary.
Tribunal member Anne Hinton asked why Mr Guest allowed the vesting order to proceed if he had concerns about his creditors.
"You wanted to get as much as you could into your wife's name."
Mr Guest: "Not so."
Judge Clarkson: "The concern we have is that your family have ended up with a significant asset at the expense of creditors."
Mr Guest denied that "some slick trick" had been pulled and knew the move "was open to scrutiny".
Asked by Mr Andersen about $5200 of client's money being in his business account rather than his trust account for several weeks in 1994 and why he provided incorrect information about it in a letter to an auditor, Mr Guest accepted "a serious lapse".
"I thought my daughter might be dying of a brain tumour. It's a serious lapse but it's against that background."
Asked why, in 1997, he vouched for a client having a driver's licence in a custody case when he did not have one, Mr Guest considered the matter "trivial".
The hearing continues today.
