In re Sabo, 49 A.3d 1219

Sabo was disbarred by this court on consent in 2003 after a Virginia felony conviction for attempted malicious wounding.
The underlying conviction involved an incident where Sabo allegedly cut a former girlfriend’s brake lines; trial evidence suggested moral turpitude but he maintained innocence.
Since 2003, Sabo has undergone mental health treatment and built a home renovation business; a 2009 Home Depot incident resulted in a probation-referred outcome for larceny by false pretenses.
Sabo filed for reinstatement on January 4, 2011; Bar Counsel did not contest but recommended continued mental health treatment for five years.
The petition proceeded uncontested to this court; the Board recommended denial, while the Hearing Committee recommended reinstatement with a five-year treatment condition.
The court granted reinstatement, holding Sabo fit to resume practice but conditioning reinstatement on ongoing mental health treatment for five years.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the misconduct underlying disbarment permanently bars reinstatement	Sabo explains past conduct and cites mitigating factors; not per se bar	Board urged skepticism about reinstatement due to home depot incident and mental health	Not a permanent bar; consideration under Roundtree factors required
Whether an assertion of innocence defeats reinstatement	Innocence can be maintained; not a bar to rehabilitation	Board emphasized need to address seriousness of misconduct	Innocence not required to be confessed; still sufficient to assess seriousness and rehabilitation
Whether Sabo adequately satisfied Roundtree factors given post-discipline conduct	Substantial rehabilitation shown by treatment, church involvement, character witnesses	Concerns about treatment duration and Home Depot incident persist	Yes; factors found satisfied by clear and convincing evidence
Whether a five-year mental health treatment condition is appropriate	Condition balances protection with rehabilitation	Monitoring deemed impractical or unnecessary	Five-year treatment condition adopted to support reintegration and public protection

In re Roundtree, 503 A.2d 1215 (D.C.1985) (five factors for reinstatement: misconduct, recognition, post-discipline conduct, present character, present qualifications)
In re Bettis, 644 A.2d 1023 (D.C.1994) (great weight given to Board/Hearing Committee recommendations)
In re Robinson, 705 A.2d 687 (D.C.1998) (clear and convincing standard; fitness to resume practice)
Borders, 665 A.2d 1381 (D.C.1995) (court scrutinizes gravity of misconduct and grounds for reinstatement)
In re Spilman, 104 P.3d 576 (Okla.2004) (innocence not barrier to reinstatement; consciousness of wrongful conduct shown)
In re McBride, 602 A.2d 626 (D.C.1992) (disbarment for crime involving moral turpitude; reinstatement after five years possible)
In re Appler, 669 A.2d 731 (D.C.1995) (monitoring sometimes deemed necessary due to lifelong illness)