Petition of Edwin R. Jonas III for Reinstatement to the Bar of the State of Maine, 2017 ME 48

Edwin R. Jonas III, admitted to Maine Bar in 1987, was administratively suspended in 1995 for failing to register and petitioned for reinstatement in 2013.
Jonas engaged in prolonged, contentious post-divorce litigation (absconding to Cayman Islands with children, hiding funds, violating orders), leading to contempt, a vexatious-litigant designation, and suspensions in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Florida.
The Grievance Commission recommended conditional reinstatement; the Board created a Special Panel, reviewed the record, and recommended denial.
The single justice granted a full de novo hearing (two-day bench trial) and admitted numerous out-of-jurisdiction judgments and orders under the reasonable-person admissibility standard.
The single justice found Jonas failed to meet his clear-and-convincing burden to show moral fitness and that reinstatement would not harm the bar or public, and denied reinstatement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of reinstatement factors (M. Bar R. 7.3(j)(5))	Jonas: Factors for disciplinary reinstatement do not apply to administrative-suspension reinstatement.	Board: The listed factors apply to all 7.3(j) reinstatements though weight may vary.	Court: Factors apply to all petitions under 7.3(j); Board and justice properly considered them.
Creation/use of a Board "Special Panel"	Jonas: Special Panel violated Bar Rules and due process.	Board: Regulation permits Board discretion to adopt procedures and independently evaluate Commission recommendations.	Court: Special Panel was permissible and did not violate rules or due process.
Standard of evidentiary admissibility at de novo hearing	Jonas: Evidentiary rules or judicial-notice limits should restrict use of out-of-jurisdiction judgments.	Board: Reasonable-person standard applies; judgments are highly relevant to character/fitness.	Court: Reasonable-person standard governed reinstatement proceedings; admission of prior judgments was proper (Rules of Evidence did not apply).
Sufficiency of proof for reinstatement	Jonas: Misconduct is personal, explanations/estoppel justify reinstatement; he meets burden.	Board: Jonas’s long pattern of contempt, frivolous/vexatious litigation, and suspensions rebut fitness and credibility.	Court: Jonas failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he has requisite moral fitness and that reinstatement would not harm the bar; denial affirmed.

Bailey v. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs, 90 A.3d 1137 (Me. 2014) (interpreting bar-rule standards for reinstatement and evidentiary review)
In re Williams, 8 A.3d 666 (Me. 2010) (discussing Court’s review role and record development in reinstatement proceedings)
In re Application of Feingold, 296 A.2d 492 (Me. 1972) (procedural posture treating single-justice reinstatement decision as trial-court judgment)
Kurtz & Perry, P.A. v. Emerson, 8 A.3d 677 (Me. 2010) (explaining collateral estoppel/issue-preclusion standards)
State v. Jones, 55 A.3d 432 (Me. 2012) (standard of review for alleged procedural due process violations)