164 A.3d 120
Me.2017Background
- Edwin R. Jonas III, admitted 1987, petitioned in 2013 for reinstatement to the Maine Bar after an administrative suspension for failure to register (1995); he had a long history of sanctions, suspensions, contempt findings, and vexatious-litigator determinations in other jurisdictions.
- Grievance Commission recommended conditional reinstatement; the Board created a Special Panel, reviewed the record, and recommended denial.
- A single justice held a full de novo bench trial (April 27–28, 2015); during that trial the single justice applied the Maine Rules of Evidence and excluded certain materials Jonas offered.
- The single justice denied reinstatement, finding Jonas failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the moral qualifications and fitness required by M. Bar R. 7.3(j)(5).
- On appeal the Law Court originally affirmed but then granted reconsideration and withdrew its prior opinion to hold that the proper standard of evidentiary admissibility in reinstatement proceedings is the "reasonable person" standard (not the Rules of Evidence) and remanded limitedly for the single justice to consider evidence excluded under the Rules of Evidence and, at her discretion, developments after the original hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicable evidentiary standard for reinstatement hearing | Jonas: Rules of Evidence should apply at the single-justice de novo hearing | Board/State: reasonable‑person standard (as used in admission/administrative proceedings) applies | Held: reasonable‑person standard governs admissibility in reinstatement proceedings before Commission, Board, and the single justice even when a full de novo hearing is held; Rules of Evidence do not apply |
| Admission of evidence excluded at trial under Rules of Evidence | Jonas: excluded evidence should be considered because it would be admissible under reasonable‑person standard | Board: exclusion appropriate; at most limited materials (e.g., testimony from Sec. Zinke) should be considered | Held: remand limited to allow single justice to consider (1) evidence Jonas expressly offered but was excluded under Rules of Evidence and not otherwise in record, and (2) at the justice’s discretion, developments after the close of the original trial |
| Procedural challenges (Special Panel, notice, opportunity to be heard, due process) | Jonas: Board’s Special Panel procedure and other processes violated Bar Rules and due process | Board: Special Panel permissible; Jonas had notice, counsel, and multiple hearings; no deprivation of process | Held: Board’s Special Panel and procedures did not violate rules or due process; Jonas received adequate notice and a full opportunity to be heard |
| Reliance on judgments/orders from other jurisdictions (judicial notice / preclusion) | Jonas: single justice improperly took judicial notice of factual findings in other jurisdictions | Board: other courts’ judgments are relevant to moral character; admissible under reasonable‑person standard | Held: under reasonable‑person standard the single justice properly considered judgments and orders as the kind of information reasonable people rely on; judicial‑notice rules not controlling and factual findings in other judgments are not judicially noticeable as conclusive facts absent issue preclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- Bailey v. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs, 90 A.3d 1137 (Me. 2014) (interpreting Bar Rules and standards for admission/reinstatement)
- In re Williams, 8 A.3d 666 (Me. 2010) (procedures for Board/Commission and single‑justice review in reinstatement matters)
- In re Application of Feingold, 296 A.2d 492 (Me. 1972) (appellate treatment of single‑justice decisions in bar matters)
- State v. Dolloff, 58 A.3d 1032 (Me. 2012) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- Kurtz & Perry, P.A. v. Emerson, 8 A.3d 677 (Me. 2010) (issue preclusion / fair opportunity to litigate principles)