Opinion ID: 2514191
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The presumption against reinstatement

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.