In re Hirsch, 95 A.3d 412

Hirsch first applied to the Vermont bar in 2004; committee denied for lack of fitness.
A commissioner recommended conditions (twelve months of treatment and insight) for a second chance.
In 2008 Hirsch reapplied; NCBE investigation prompted updated disclosures and later closure due to incomplete information.
Hirsch reapplied in 2011 with updated disclosures; reports showed he was denied admission in NH and MD on fitness grounds.
February 2012, the Committee denied admission based on doctor’s evaluation, a 2006 Albany police incident, and a 2009 family court retention-hearing testimony.
A de novo evidentiary hearing was conducted; the commissioner found substantial evidence of unfitness, including ongoing paranoia and difficulty presenting facts and law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hirsch demonstrates fitness to practice law	Hirsch asserts health history and treatment show fitness	Committee findings show conduct evidencing unfitness independent of health history	Denied; record supports unfitness
Adequacy of notice to Hirsch	Notice of reasons was deficient	Notice was specific and ample opportunity to respond	Adequate due process and notice
ADA/Constitutional challenge to NCBE questions	Questions about mental health violate ADA/Constitutions	Court need not address ADA claims; fitness supported regardless	Not addressed; record supports denial independent of health-history challenges
Weight of evidence—mental health vs. conduct	Disability and treatment history should weigh in favor	Conduct demonstrating unfitness outweighs health-history considerations	Conduct evidence supports denial of admission

In re Monaghan, 126 Vt. 53, 222 A.2d 665 (1966) (Vt. 1966) (due process and notice standards for bar admission proceedings)
In re Bitter, 185 Vt. 151, 969 A.2d 71 (2008) (Vt. 2008) (burden of proof for fitness; evidence sufficiency standard)