In re Jonas, 164 A.3d 120

Edwin R. Jonas III, admitted 1987, was administratively suspended in 1995 and petitioned for reinstatement in 2013; he has a lengthy history of sanctions, suspensions in other states, contempt findings, and vexatious-litigant determinations arising from protracted post-divorce litigation.
The Grievance Commission recommended conditional reinstatement; a Board "Special Panel" reviewed the Commission record and the full Board recommended denial on Sept. 24, 2014.
The single justice granted Jonas a de novo bench trial (April 2015), applied the Maine Rules of Evidence, excluded certain evidence (including an affidavit), and denied reinstatement by judgment (June 22, 2016).
On appeal the Law Court initially affirmed, but upon reconsideration concluded the Rules of Evidence did not govern admissibility for reinstatement hearings and that the more permissive “reasonable person” standard applies.
The Court vacated the single justice’s judgment and remanded, limited to (1) evidence Jonas had offered but which was excluded under the Rules of Evidence and not otherwise admitted, and (2) at the single justice’s discretion, evidence of events after the original hearing.
On remand the single justice must reconsider admissibility under the reasonable person standard and then determine whether Jonas has met the clear-and-convincing burden for reinstatement under M. Bar R. 7.3(j)(5).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicable evidentiary standard at single-justice de novo reinstatement hearing	Jonas: Rules of Evidence applied; exclusion of evidence deprived him	Board/Bar: reasonable-person standard applies (or Rules apply in some contexts)	Court: reasonable-person standard governs reinstatement proceedings; Rules of Evidence did not apply here
Scope of remand and admissible new evidence	Jonas: remand should allow consideration of evidence excluded under Rules of Evidence	Board: if remand, limit to specific issue (e.g., testimony from Interior Secretary Zinke)	Court: remand limited to (1) evidence expressly excluded under Rules of Evidence and not otherwise admitted and (2) at justice's discretion, evidence of post-hearing developments
Creation/use of a Board "Special Panel" to review Commission report	Jonas: Special Panel violated Bar Rules and due process	Board: Panel authorized by Board’s discretion to evaluate Commission findings	Court: creation/use of Special Panel was proper and did not violate rules or due process
Reliance on judgments from other jurisdictions / judicial notice	Jonas: exclusion and/or improper judicial notice of prior judgments	Board: prior judgments are relevant; court can judicially notice	Court: factual findings in other judgments are admissible under reasonable-person standard; judicial notice of factual findings is inappropriate but court may consider judgments as information reasonable persons rely upon

Bailey v. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs, 90 A.3d 1137 (Me. 2014) (interpreting bar‑rule standards for character and fitness review)
In re Williams, 8 A.3d 666 (Me. 2010) (discussing delegation to Board and scope of single-justice review in reinstatement matters)
In re Application of Feingold, 296 A.2d 492 (Me. 1972) (procedural posture for appellate review of single-justice decisions)
State v. Guyette, 36 A.3d 916 (Me. 2012) (harmless‑error standard for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Jones, 55 A.3d 432 (Me. 2012) (standard of review for procedural due process issues)
State v. Dolloff, 58 A.3d 1032 (Me. 2012) (review standard for evidentiary rulings)
Kurtz & Perry, P.A. v. Emerson, 8 A.3d 677 (Me. 2010) (doctrine of issue preclusion and prerequisites for relitigation of factual issues)