164 A.3d 120
Me.2017Background
- Edwin R. Jonas III, admitted to Maine bar in 1987, was administratively suspended in 1995 for failure to register and petitioned for reinstatement in 2013.
- Jonas has a long history of contentious post-divorce litigation, sanctions, contempt findings, reciprocal suspensions in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Florida, a vexatious-litigant designation in Montana, and a Rule 11 admonishment from a federal court.
- The Grievance Commission recommended conditional reinstatement after a hearing; the Board formed a Special Panel, reviewed the record, and recommended denial of reinstatement to the single justice.
- The single justice conducted a full de novo hearing, applied the Maine Rules of Evidence at trial, excluded certain proffered evidence, and denied reinstatement, finding Jonas failed to meet his burden by clear and convincing evidence.
- On appeal the Law Court agreed there were no process or due-process defects but held the proper evidentiary admissibility standard for reinstatement hearings is the "reasonable person" standard (not the Maine Rules of Evidence) and remanded for reconsideration of excluded evidence under that standard.
Issues
| Issue | Jonas's Argument | Board's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Board creating a "Special Panel" to review Commission recommendation | Special Panel was unauthorized and violated Bar Rules and due process | Board had discretion to establish procedures to consider objections and make independent recommendations | Formation of Special Panel was permissible and did not violate Bar Rules or due process |
| Applicability of reinstatement factors in M. Bar R. 7.3(j)(5) to administrative-suspension reinstatement | Factors did not apply because Jonas sought reinstatement from an administrative (non-disciplinary) suspension | Factors apply to all petitions referenced in 7.3(j), though weight may vary by circumstance | The listed factors do apply to administrative-suspension reinstatements and were properly considered |
| Evidentiary standard at single-justice de novo reinstatement hearing: Rules of Evidence vs. "reasonable person" standard | Single justice should have applied Rules of Evidence (and exclusion of evidence was proper) | Reinstatement proceedings mirror admission/administrative proceedings; admissibility governed by "reasonable person" standard | The appropriate standard is the "reasonable person" standard; Rules of Evidence do not govern admissibility in reinstatement hearings before Commission/Board or at a de novo reinstatement hearing conducted under those rules |
| Use of judgments/orders from other jurisdictions (judicial notice, collateral estoppel) | Court erred in taking judicial notice of factual findings in foreign judgments; some excluded evidence could change result | Judgments and orders are highly relevant; under reasonable-person standard the court may rely on them as the kind of evidence reasonable persons use | Single justice may consider judgments/orders as evidence under the reasonable-person standard but judicial notice is limited to existence/action of the court; remand required to reconsider previously excluded evidence under correct standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Bailey v. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs, 90 A.3d 1137 (Me. 2014) (interpreting Bar Rules and standards for character and fitness proceedings)
- In re Williams, 8 A.3d 666 (Me. 2010) (delegation of record development and recommendation role to Board in reinstatement proceedings)
- In re Application of Feingold, 296 A.2d 492 (Me. 1972) (treating single justice decision as trial-court judgment for appellate review)
- 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) (doctrine of collateral estoppel/issue preclusion)
- United States v. Jones, 29 F.3d 1549 (11th Cir. 1994) (limiting judicial notice to the existence of another court’s order, not its factual findings)