Opinion ID: 2315983
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Standard of Proof on a Petition for Reinstatement to the Bar

Text: In addition to producing evidence of competency, candidates seeking their first admission to the bar need produce to the Board [of Bar Examiners] satisfactory evidence of good moral character. M.Bar Adm.R. 9(a). In contrast, because a disbarred lawyer seeking reinstatement has once proved unworthy of membership in the legal profession, Maine Bar Rule 7( o ) imposes a much greater burden on that candidate for reinstatement than upon a person seeking admission as an original matter. To be restored to membership in the bar after having been disqualified, the petitioner ... shall have the burden of demonstrating the moral qualifications, competency and learning in law required for admission to practice law in this State, and that reinstatement will not be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the Bar, the administration of justice, or to the public interest. M.Bar R. 7( o )(5) (emphasis added). [2] The Bar Rules treat an attorney who has been disbarred in another state as if the attorney had been disbarred also in Maine. See M.Bar R. 7(m). By virtue of her disbarment in Georgia, [3] we therefore evaluate petitioner's application for admission to the Maine bar according to the provisions of M.Bar R. 7( o ) for reinstatement. The standard to which an applicant for reinstatement must prove the additional elements required by Rule 7( o ) is a high one. [A]lthough the preponderance standard normally prevails in a civil case, appellate courts in a large number of categories of litigation have found compelling reasons for requiring a higher standard of proof. Taylor v. Commissioner of Mental Health, 481 A.2d 139, 150 (Me.1984) (clear and convincing proof of no danger to the public is required for release of a person committed to mental hospital following his acquittal by reason of insanity). One such category is represented by cases in which courts are called upon, as we are here, to protect the public by predicting that an individual will not repeat past behavior that has caused that person to be placed under a disability or restraint. Id. The heightened standard required for release from that disability or restraint is especially warranted when the individual's predicate behavior has been found to exist by a clear and convincing standard or by the more stringent criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. In such cases, clear and convincing evidence helps to insure the accuracy of the court's prediction. Id. Here petitioner admitted to and was convicted of fraudulent conduct in the practice of law. Because we are required specifically to determine that her reinstatement will not be detrimental to the public interest, we must be assured that she will not engage in that conduct if she is permitted again to hold herself out as an attorney. Petitioner, therefore, must present clear and convincing evidence to that effect. Cf. In re Hiss, 368 Mass. 447, 454-55, 333 N.E.2d 429, 435 (1975) ([b]efore he again will be entered on the rolls as an attorney eligible to practice, the disbarred attorney who has committed the grave offenses to which the Bar Counsel directs attention must bear a heavy burden of proof and pass the close scrutiny to which reviewing courts subject petitions for reinstatement). The public interest especially demands such close scrutiny when the nature of a petitioner's prior conduct related directly to `the public confidence necessary to the proper performance of the duties of an attorney.... ' In re Hiss, 368 Mass. at 461 n. 20, 333 N.E.2d at 438 n. 20 (quoting Matter of Keenan, 314 Mass. 544, 548, 50 N.E.2d 785, 788 (1943)). By the clear and convincing standard, petitioner is required to prove to a high probability, rather than by a mere preponderance, that her reinstatement in the legal profession despite her past misconduct will not be detrimental to the public interest in the future. See Taylor v. Commissioner of Mental Health, 481 A.2d at 152.