In re Jonas
164 A.3d 120
| Me. | 2017Background
- Edwin R. Jonas III, admitted in 1987, was administratively suspended from the Maine Bar in 1995 for failure to register and petitioned for reinstatement in 2013.
- The Grievance Commission recommended conditional reinstatement; the Board formed a Special Panel, reviewed the record, and recommended denial to the single justice.
- The single justice conducted a full de novo hearing in April 2015, applied the Maine Rules of Evidence, excluded certain proffered material, and found Jonas failed to prove eligibility for reinstatement by clear and convincing evidence.
- Jonas appealed; this Court initially affirmed but granted reconsideration limited to evidentiary-standard issues and potential remand for consideration of evidence excluded under the Rules of Evidence.
- The Court held that reinstatement proceedings use the "reasonable person" evidentiary admissibility standard (like bar admission and Commission proceedings), not the Maine Rules of Evidence, and remanded for the single justice to consider (1) evidence previously excluded under the Rules and (2) at the court’s discretion, post-trial developments.
- Judgment vacated and case remanded for the single justice to admit appropriate additional evidence and reassess whether Jonas meets the clear-and-convincing reinstatement burden under M. Bar R. 7.3(j)(5).
Issues
| Issue | Jonas's Argument | Board/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper evidentiary standard in single-justice de novo reinstatement hearing | Rules of Evidence applied and exclusion of evidence was proper | Reinstatement proceedings use the "reasonable person" admissibility standard; Rules of Evidence not required | "Reasonable person" standard governs; Rules of Evidence do not apply; remand for reconsideration of excluded evidence |
| Formation/use of a Board "Special Panel" | Creation violated Bar Rules and Jonas’s due process | Board had discretion to establish procedures and a panel to review Commission recommendations | Special Panel was permissible and did not violate Bar Rules or due process |
| Procedural due process (notice and opportunity to be heard) | Procedures cumulatively denied due process | Jonas had notice, multiple opportunities to be heard, counsel, and de novo trial | No due process violation; Jonas had adequate notice and hearings |
| Use of judgments from other jurisdictions / judicial notice | Taking judicial notice of factual findings in other courts was improper | Prior judgments/orders are relevant and admissible under reasonable-person standard | Under reasonable-person standard, the single justice could rely on judgments and their findings as evidence; judicial notice rules discussion not outcome-determinative |
| Scope of remand | No remand warranted; any excluded minor evidence would be harmless | If remand, limited to specific excluded evidence (and possibly evidence from Sec. Zinke) | Court ordered limited remand to allow single justice to consider evidence excluded under Rules and post-trial developments at her discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Bailey v. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs, 90 A.3d 1137 (Me. 2014) (interpretation of Bar Rules and standards governing admissions)
- Bd. of Overseers of the Bar v. Warren, 34 A.3d 1103 (Me. 2011) (standard of review and Bar disciplinary procedure principles)
- In re Williams, 8 A.3d 666 (Me. 2010) (role of the Board and Court in reinstatement and record development)
- In re Application of Feingold, 296 A.2d 492 (Me. 1972) (procedural posture for appellate review of single-justice decisions)
- State v. Dolloff, 58 A.3d 1032 (Me. 2012) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings and abuse of discretion)
- State v. Jones, 55 A.3d 432 (Me. 2012) (de novo review for alleged procedural due process violations)