Opinion ID: 2514191
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The standard for reinstatement

Text: 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]