Petition of Edwin R. Jonas III for Reinstatement to the Bar of the State of Maine

Summary

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial of Edwin R. Jonas III’s petition for reinstatement to the Maine Bar following his administrative suspension for failing to register. The court held that the reinstatement proceedings properly used the reasonable-person evidentiary standard, that the Board could appoint a special panel, and that Jonas received due process. The court also upheld consideration of judgments and orders from prior litigation in evaluating his eligibility for reinstatement.

Holdings

1. The Board's creation of a Special Panel was authorized by the applicable Bar Rules and Board regulations and did not violate Jonas's due process rights.
2. The factors listed in Maine Bar Rule 7.3(j)(5) applied to all petitions for reinstatement covered by Rule 7.3(j), including petitions following an administrative suspension.
3. The procedures did not violate due process because Jonas received notice and meaningful opportunities to be heard, including the opportunity to present evidence, argument, witnesses, and cross-examination.
4. The Rules of Evidence did not apply to Jonas's de novo reinstatement hearing; instead, evidence was admissible under the reasonable-person standard. Under that standard, the single justice properly considered judgments and orders concerning Jonas's prior conduct.
5. Jonas failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he possessed the moral qualifications, honesty, integrity, competency, and learning required for reinstatement or that reinstatement would not be detrimental to the bar, the administration of justice, or the public interest.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Board of Overseers of the Bar violated the Maine Bar Rules or Jonas's due process rights by creating a Special Panel to review the Grievance Commission's recommendation.
2. Whether the reinstatement factors in Maine Bar Rule 7.3(j)(5) applied to a petition following an administrative suspension.
3. Whether the reinstatement procedures violated Jonas's procedural due process rights.
4. Whether the single justice properly admitted and considered judgments and orders from prior litigation involving Jonas under the reasonable-person evidentiary standard.
5. Whether Jonas met his burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was eligible for reinstatement.

Disposition

affirmed