Appendix B

 

ELEMENTS CONSIDERED IN READMISSION – STATE BY STATE

 

Elements Considered in Readmission Proceedings by State[1]

E = Emphasized

C = Cited

D = Disapproved

 

 

 

AL[2]

AK[3]

AZ[4]

AR[5]

CA[6]

CO[7]

CT[8]

DE[9]

DC[10]

FL[11]

GA[12]

HI[13]

ID[14]

IL[15]

IN[16]

IA[17]

Present Moral Fitness

C

C

C

 

E

 

E

E

 

 

C

 

 

 

C

 

Acceptance of Wrongdoing

 

E

C

 

C

E

 

 

E

E

C

E

 

E

C

 

Extent of Rehabilitation

 

E

 

C

E

 

 

 

 

E

C

 

 

 

 

 

Seriousness of Misconduct

E

E

E

E

E

 

 

 

C

E

C

 

 

E

 

 

Post-discipline Conduct

C

C

E

 

E

 

 

 

C

E

 

E

 

E

C

 

Time elapsed

 

E

E

E

 

E

 

 

E

 

 

C

 

 

D

 

 

Past & current character

 

C

E

 

E

 

 

 

C

 

 

 

 

E

C

 

Current legal competency

 

C

C

E

 

E

 

E

C

 

 

 

 

 

C

 

Restitution

  

E

C

C

 

E

 

 

E

 

E

 

 

 

E

 

 

Public Interest

 

C

C

 

E

 

 

 

C

 

 

 

E

 

 

C

 

 

 

 

 

 

KS[18]

KY[19]

LA[20]

ME[21]

MD[22]

MA[23]

MI[24]

MN[25]

MS[26]

MO[27]

MT[28]

NE[29]

NV[30]

NH[31]

NJ[32]

NM[33]

Present Moral Fitness

C

E

C

C

C

C

 

E

C

 

E

E

C

C

C

 

Acceptance of Wrongdoing

C

 

C

 

 

 

 

C

C

E

C

 

 

C

 

C

Extent of Rehabilitation

C

 

C

C

C

 

 

 

C

 

 

 

 

C

 

C

Seriousness of Misconduct

E

C

 

 

E

C

E

C

 

C

D

 

 

C

 

 

Post-discipline Conduct

 

 

C

 

C

C

C

C

 

 

C

 

C

C

C

 

Time elapsed

 

C

 

 

 

 

C

C

 

 

 

 

D

 

C

C

C

Past & current character

C

 

 

 

 

C

C

C

 

 

 

 

 

C

 

C

Current legal competency

C

 

C

C

E

C

 

C

 

 

 

 

C

 

 

 

Restitution

  

 

C

C

 

 

C

 

C

C

 

C

 

C

 

D

C

Public Interest

 

C

 

 

C

E

 

E

 

 

 

 

 

C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NY[34]

NC[35]

ND[36]

OH[37]

OK[38]

OR[39]

PA[40]

RI[41]

SC[42]

SD[43]

TN[44]

TX[45]

UT[46]

VT[47]

VA[48]

WA[49]

Present Moral Fitness

C

C

C

 

C

C

C

C

 

C

C

C

C

C

C

 

Acceptance of Wrongdoing

 

 

C

 

C

C

C

C

 

C

 

 

 

 

 

C

Extent of Rehabilitation

 

 

 

 

C

C

 

 

 

C

 

 

C

 

 

 

Seriousness of Misconduct

 

C

C



E

 

E

C

 

C

 

 

 

 

 

C

Post-discipline Conduct

 

C

 

 

C

C

 

 

 

C

 

C

C

 

 

C

Time elapsed

 

 

C

D

 

E

 

C

 

 

C

 

 

 

 

 

C

Past & current character

C

C

 

 

C

 

 

 

 

C

 

 

 

 

 

C

Current legal competency

C

C

 

 

C

 

C

C

 

C

C

 

C

C

C

C

Restitution

  

 

C

 

 

 

C

 

 

 

C

 

 

 

 

C

C

Public Interest

 

C

C

C

 

 

 

E

C

 

C

C

C

 

C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WV[50]

WI[51]

WY[52]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present Moral Fitness

C

 

C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acceptance of Wrongdoing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Extent of Rehabilitation

C

 

C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seriousness of Misconduct

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Post-discipline Conduct

 

C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time elapsed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Past & current character

 

C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Current legal competency

C

C

C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Restitution

  

 

C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Public Interest

 

C

C

C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



[1] The elements charted below are from In re Wiederholt, __ Al. __, ___ P2d ___, 2001 Alas. LEXIS 71 (2001) in which the court reviews cases from many jurisdictions and  writes,

Most jurisdictions, including Alaska, have standards for reinstatement that are similar to the ABA guidelines. n25 Many jurisdictions have further developed fact-intensive, multi-part tests for determining whether a petitioner meets these standards. n26 The factors most commonly taken into account include (1) the petitioner's present moral fitness; (2) the petitioner's acceptance of wrongdoing with sincerity and honesty; (3) the extent  [*13]  of the petitioner's rehabilitation; (4) the nature and seriousness of the original misconduct; (5) the petitioner's conduct following the discipline; (6) the time elapsed since the original discipline; (7) the petitioner's character, maturity, and experience at the time of discipline and at present; (8) the petitioner's current competency and qualifications to practice law; (9) restitution; and (10) the proof that the petitioner's return to the practice of law will not be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar or the administration of justice, or subversive of the public interest.

[2]   Bonner v. Disciplinary Board of the Alabama State Bar, 401 So. 2d 734 (Ala 1981);  Worley v Alabama State Bar, 572 So. 2d 1239 (Ala, 1990).

[3] In re Wiederholt, __ Al. __, ___ P2d ___, 2001 Alas. LEXIS 71 (2001)

[4] In re Robbins, 172 Ariz. 255, 836 P.2d 965 (1992)

[5] In re Butcher, 322 Ark. 24, 907 SW2d 715 (1995);  In re Lee, 305 Ark 196, 806 SW2nd 382 (1991)

[6] In re Menna, 11 Cal4th 975, 905 P2d 944, 47 Cal Rptr2d 2 (1995); Hippard v. State Bar of California, 49 Cal. 3d 1084, 782 P.2d 1140, 1145, 264 Cal. Rptr. 684 (1989)

[7] Colorado Courts have not visited this issue in quite some time.  But see, People v. Lindsey, 93 Colo. 41; 23 P.2d 118 (1933).

[8] Connecticut Courts exercise very limited appellate control over the decisions of disciplinary panels, In re Pagano, 207 Conn 336, 541 A2nd 104 (1988).  The court in In re Dimenstein, 36 Conn. Supp. 41; 410 A.2d 491 (1979) examined the policies that weigh against permanent disbarment.

[9] In re Clark, 607 A2d 1230 (Del 1992); In re Reed, 584 A2d 1207 (1990).

[10] In re Jamison, 726 A2d 690 (1999); In re Roundtree, 503 A2d 1215 (DC 1985).

[11] In re J.J.T., 761 So2d 1094 (Fla 2000);  In re J.C.B, 655 So2d 79 (Fla 1995), In re P.T.R, 662 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1995), In re Jahn, 559 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 1990)

[12] In re Reed, 258 Ga. 271, 368 S.E.2d 499  ( 1988).

[13] In re Mills, 23 Haw 224; 1916 Haw LEXIS 23 (1916)

[14] Idaho does not appear to have addressed the issue of reinstating a disbarred lawyer since In re Hofstede, 34 Id 82, 198 P 318 (1921)

[15] In re Richman, 191 Ill. 2d 238; 730 N.E.2d 45 (2000); In re Polito, 132 Ill. 2d 294; 547 N.E.2d 465 (1989).

[16] In re Gutman, 599 NE2d 604, (Ind 1992)

[17] In re Kirshen, 451 NW2d 807 (Iowa 1990), “Another factor which we believe militates against imposing a sanction of disbarment against attorney Kirshen under our Iowa disciplinary system is that, unlike the situation which exists under Nebraska rules, we have no established procedure for disbarred attorneys to seek reinstatement.”

[18] In re Russo, 230 Kan 5, 630 P2d 711 (1981)

[19] Greene v Kentucky Bar Ass’n, 904 SW2d 233 (Ky 1995)

[20] In re Herzog, 753 So2d 824 (La 2000); In re Riley, 648 So2d 865 (1995).

[21] In re Hughes, 594 A2d 1098 (Me 1991)

[22] In re Murry, 316 Md 303, 558 A2d 710 (1989);In re Raimondi, 285 Md 607, 403 A2d 1234 (1979)

[23] In re Pool, 401 Mass. 460, 517 NE2d 444 (1988); In re Hiss, 368 Mass. 447; 333 N.E.2d 429 (1975).

[24] In re McWhorter, 449 Mich 130, 534 NW2d 480 (1995), Grievance Admisinstrator v. August, 438 Mich 296, 475 NW2d 256 (1991)

[25] In re Kadrie, 602 NW2d 868 (Minn 1999); In re Wegner, 417 NW2d 97 (Minn 1987).

[26] In re McGuire, ___  So2d   ____, 2001 Miss. LEXIS 163 (2001); In re Parsons, 2000 Miss. LEXIS 179.

[27] In re Sympson, 322 SW2d 808 (Mo. 1959), MRS § 484.270 (2000)

[28] In re McKeon, 201 Mont 515, 656 P2d 179 (1982)

[29] State ex rel. Sorenson v Goldman, 182 Neb 126, 153 NW2d 451 (1967).

[30] In re Pavageau, 2000 Nev. LEXIS 155 (2000)

[31] In re T.J.S, 141 NH 697, 692 A2d 498 (1997)(admission case).  It is not clear that New Hampshire would entertain an application for admission from a disbarred lawyer.  See, Esheleman’s Case, 126 NH 1, 489 A2d 571 (1985).

[32] In re Harris, 88 NJL 18, 95 A. 761 (1915)  In In re Wilson, 81 N.J 451, 409 A2d 1153 (1979) the court noted wrote “Almost without practical remedy, for our research reveals only three orders of reinstatement following disbarment over the past hundred years.”

[33] In re Zamora, 2001 NMSC 11, 21 P3d 30 (2001)(in New Mexico the court will often provide in the order of disbarment how long it will be before the disbarred attorney can apply for reinstatement).

[34] 22 NYCRR 691.11 (2001),  In re Citrin, 94 NY2d 459, 727 NE2d 569 (20000

[35] In re Garrison, 44 NC App 158, 260 S.E.2d 445 (1979).

[36] NDRLD, Rule 4.5 (2000)

[37]  Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Bustamante, 78 Ohio St. 3d 74, 676 NE2d 516 (1997). (“Florida State Bar Rule 3-5.1(f) permits the respondent to apply for readmission . . . five years from the effective date of his Florida disbarment. In contrast, disbarment under Ohio's Gov.Bar R. V6)(C) would bar respondent from ever being readmitted to the practice of law in Ohio. Thus, a Florida "disbarment" is comparable to an Ohio "indefinite suspension.)

[38] In re Hird, 2001 OK 28, 21 P3d 1043 (2001)

[39] In re Griffith, 323 Or 99, 913 P2d 695 (1996).

[40] In re Perrone, 2001 Pa. LEXIS 1522 (2001); In re Verlin, 557 Pa. 47, 731 A.2d 600, 601, (Pa. 1999); In re Costigan, 541 Pa. 459, 664 A2d 518 (1995).  The Pennsylvania cases address, moreso than others, the idea that certain crimes are so serious as to in themselves prevent the court from ever allowing a readmission..

[41] In re Petrowski, 706 A.2d 1315 (RI 1998), In re Romano, 615 A.2d 476 (RI 1992).

[42] The South Carolina Supreme Court delegates decision making regarding readmission cases to a fitness commission.  See,  S.C. Code Ann. § 40-5-40 (2000), e.g., In re Houston, 343 S.C. 247; 540 S.E.2d 839 (2000).  The decisions of that commission are not available.

[43] In re Pier, 1997 SD 23, 561 N.W.2d 297 (1996)

[44] Board of Professional Responsibility of Supreme Court v. Bonnington, 62 S.W.2d 568n (Tenn.1988)  Office of Disciplinary Counsel on behalf of Board of Professional Responsibility of Supreme Court v. Davis,  696 S.W.2d 528 (Tenn. 1985).

[45] Board of Law Examiners v. Gabriel, 953 S.W.2d 227 (Tex 1997).

[46] Utah Code Jud. Admin. R. 25 (2001)

[47] In re Capriola, 145 Vt. 245, 487 A.2d 144 (1984). In re Harrington, 134 Vt 549, 367 A2d 161 (1976); Vt.A.O. 9 Rule 8 (2000)

[48] Va. Sup. Ct. Organ. and Gov. PARA 13 (2001); VSB Council Dis. Pro. Rule 1 (2001)(disbarment and revocation are equivalent).

[49] In re Stroh, 108 Wn.2d 410, 739 P.2d 690, 693 (Wash. 1987), In re Rosellini, 108 Wn2d 350, 739 P2d 658 (1987)

[50] In re Sayre, 207 W. Va. 654; 535 S.E.2d 719 (2000); In re Brown, 166 W. Va. 226; 273 S.E.2d 567 (1980).

[51] Wis. SCR 22.29 (2000)

[52] Wyo. Bar Discip. Rule XXII (2000)