F. Lee Bailey v. Board of Bar Examiners, 2014 ME 58

Bailey applied to Maine Bar after Florida disbarment for misconduct relating to Duboc; Florida court found egregious trust-account violations, misappropriation, and ex parte communications; Bailey’s assets from Biochem stock were used personally; he was disbarred in Florida and Massachusetts; Maine Board denied admission citing outstanding tax debt and lack of recognized wrongfulness; single Justice conducted de novo review and initially denied unconditional admission but remanded after reconsideration finding tax debt being addressed; IRS liens later emerged to ~$4.5 million; Board appeals to Maine Supreme Judicial Court seeking reaffirmation of denial or further findings; majority holds Bailey failed to prove recognition of wrongfulness for most misconduct, vacates judgment, remands to Board for entry of judgment affirming Board order; dissent would remand on different issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Bailey recognition of wrongfulness meet Rule 7.3(j)(5)(C)?	Bailey recognizes wrongfulness of misconduct.	Board argues Bailey fails to recognize seriousness in most counts.	No; only ex parte conduct (Count VII) shown highly probable; remand needed for tax issue.
Is unambiguous acceptance of all findings required under 7.3(j)(5)(C)?	Bailey need not fully admit every finding.	Strict acceptance required.	Not required; but extent of recognition must be highly probable for each act.
Should the Court remand for additional consideration of tax debt and public-risk?	Tax debt creates potential public risk; must be reconsidered.	Tax obligations not dispositive if other factors show rehabilitation.	Remand to address risk from tax debt; current record insufficient.
Are the other six misconduct acts core to Bailey’s fitness given 7.3(j)(5)?	Evidence supports recognition for several counts.	Record insufficient to show highly probable recognition for Counts I–VI.	Yes for Count VII only; others not proven by clear and convincing evidence.

Florida Bar v. Bailey, 803 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 2001) (disbarment for egregious misconduct including misappropriation and ex parte acts)
In re Williams, 8 A.3d 666 (Me. 2010) (recognition standard for admission; not require full concession of all findings)
In re Hughes, 594 A.2d 1098 (Me. 1991) (public-interest gatekeeping in bar admissions; rehabilitation standard)
Bd. of Overseers of the Bar v. Campbell, 663 A.2d 11 (Me. 1995) (reinstatement factors; credibility concerns in public-interest decisions)
Taylor v. Comm’r of Mental Health & Mental Retardation, 481 A.2d 139 (Me. 1984) (clear and convincing standard; high degree of certainty required)