Opinion ID: 2514191
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reinstatement in general

Text: The bar association argues that this court should recognize a presumption against reinstatement after disbarment. According to the American Bar Association (ABA), because the purpose of lawyer discipline is not punishment, disbarred attorneys may be readmitted [10] to practice. Nevertheless, the ABA believes that the presumption should be against readmission. [11] Other jurisdictions considering reinstatement matters have followed the ABA, explicitly recognizing the existence of a presumption against readmission. [12] The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has even gone so far as to say that disbarred attorneys have no basis for an expectation ... of the right to resume practice at some future point in time. [13] The purpose behind the presumption is protection of the public. This reflects the purpose of the disciplinary process: to protect the public, not to punish the lawyer. [14] According to the South Dakota Supreme Court, a court must endeavor to make certain that it does not again put into the hands of an unworthy petitioner that almost unlimited opportunity to inflict wrongs upon society possessed by a practicing lawyer. [15] Similarly, the Oregon Supreme Court has stated that [a]ny significant doubt about whether an applicant for reinstatement has sustained [his] burden must be resolved in favor of protecting the public interest by denying reinstatement. [16] Courts have long held that [a] court should be slow to disbar, but it should be even slower to reinstate. [17] We agree with and adopt this approach. Given that both the ABA and a large number of jurisdictions have acknowledged the existence of a presumption against reinstatement, it was proper for the board to assume such a presumption existed. Accordingly, we recognize the presumption against reinstatement of a disbarred attorney and take this into account in evaluating Wiederholt's case.
The bar association argues on appeal that in order to prove that a petitioner has the proper qualifications to be reinstated to the practice of law, he or she must present `overwhelming' proof of reform coupled with `exemplary' conduct. The ABA states that [i]n no event should a lawyer even be considered for readmission until at least five years after the effective date of disbarment. [18] After that time, the ABA recommends that a lawyer seeking readmission show by clear and convincing evidence the following: rehabilitation, compliance with all applicable discipline or disability orders or rules, and fitness to practice law. [19] This high level of scrutiny is not unusual; most jurisdictions impose very high standards on those petitioning for reinstatement. The major consideration in reinstatement proceedings is whether the disbarred attorney has shown that those weaknesses that produced the earlier misconduct have been corrected. [20] Therefore, courts often consider remorse, rehabilitation, and moral fitness to practice law to be key elements in the inquiry. [21] Because a petitioner for reinstatement must demonstrate moral fitness and good character sufficient to be trusted again, the petitioner must make a showing of these characteristics that overcome[s] the court's former adverse judgment on the petitioner's character. [22] Accordingly, other jurisdictions have stated that petitioners for reinstatement should be held to an even higher standard of conduct than first-time applicants because they have already demonstrated that they are at risk for unethical conduct. [23] The majority position among courts is that the more culpable the conduct, the greater the burden for proving one is entitled to reinstatement. [24]
Most jurisdictions, including Alaska, have standards for reinstatement that are similar to the ABA guidelines. [25] Many jurisdictions have further developed fact-intensive, multi-part tests for determining whether a petitioner meets these standards. [26] The factors most commonly taken into account include (1) the petitioner's present moral fitness; (2) the petitioner's acceptance of wrongdoing with sincerity and honesty; (3) the extent of the petitioner's rehabilitation; (4) the nature and seriousness of the original misconduct; (5) the petitioner's conduct following the discipline; (6) the time elapsed since the original discipline; (7) the petitioner's character, maturity, and experience at the time of discipline and at present; (8) the petitioner's current competency and qualifications to practice law; (9) restitution; and (10) the proof that the petitioner's return to the practice of law will not be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar or the administration of justice, or subversive of the public interest. [27]