Court Opinion

ID: 9802795
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 14:53:01.122699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:01:52.985292
License: Public Domain

Justice ROBINSON
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. After much soul-searching and after meticulously reviewing the petition submitted by Mr. Cicilline and the accompanying supporting materials, I am unable to conclude that the petitioner has successfully borne “the burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence” that, at this point in time, he has satisfied the demanding criteria for readmission that are set forth in Article III, Rule 16(c) of the Supreme Court Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. It is entirely possible that, after a longer period of the petitioner’s separation from the practice of law, my view of his petition would be different from what it is today; but, as of today, I am unable to vote to grant the petition. I have, of course, carefully taken into account the fact that my highly respected colleagues in the majority have come to a different conclusion; and that fact has caused me to be especially circumspect in coming to a decision. In the end, however, I know that I would not be true to my understanding of the applicable clear and convincing evidence standard and my evaluation of Mr. Cicilline’s petition if I were to join the majority. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
Justice INDEGLIA did not participate.