Petition of Williams, 2010 ME 121

Williams was admitted to practice in Maine in 1999, suspended in 2002, and disbarred in 2004 for numerous ethical violations including client neglect, financial impropriety, and disclosure of confidential information.
The listed violations include forcing sexual acts from a former client, failing to attend appointments and court proceedings, failing to file documents, poor communications, misappropriation of funds, and causing the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection to pay $24,275.89.
In October 2009, Williams petitioned for reinstatement under M. Bar R. 7.3(j)(5) after a testimonial hearing.
The Grievance Commission recommended denial; the Board adopted the Commission's findings and recommendation, and the Maine Supreme Judicial Court denied reinstatement on May 10, 2010.
Georgia revoked Williams's teaching certificate in 2007 for failing to disclose his disbarment in Maine; the Maine court treated this as evidence of misconduct since disbarment and affirmed denial on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the reinstatement process satisfy due process requirements?	Williams contends the process violated due process.	The process provided notice, opportunity to be heard, cross-examination where appropriate, and de novo review on the developed record.	Yes; due process requirements were satisfied.
Was the denial supported by the Rule 7.3(j)(5) factors and the evidence of misconduct?	Williams argues the court misunderstood merits and downplayed conduct.	The court properly evaluated the factors and found lack of remorse and ongoing misconduct risk.	Yes; denial supported by substantial evidence and proper application of factors.
Was the inclusion of Georgia teaching certificate revocation properly considered as evidence since disbarment?	Not explicitly stated; Williams suggests evidence lacked relevance.	The Georgia revocation was properly considered as evidence of professional misconduct since disbarment.	Yes; properly considered as evidence of misconduct since disbarment.

Bd. of Overseers of the Bar v. Campbell, 539 A.2d 208 (Me. 1988) (establishes Board authority and due process framework in reinstatement)
Bd. of Overseers of the Bar v. Sylvester, 650 A.2d 702 (Me. 1994) (de novo review framework for reinstatement decisions)
Bd. of Overseers v. Lefebvre, 707 A.2d 69 (Me. 1998) (due process in attorney regulation; notice and hearing requirements)
In re Richard E., 978 A.2d 217 (Me. 2009) (de novo review standard for reinstatement determinations)
Dionne v. LeClerc, 896 A.2d 923 (Me. 2006) (fact-finder credibility and weight of evidence in disciplinary matters)
In re Hughes, 594 A.2d 1098 (Me. 1991) (burden of proof for reinstatement petitions and standards)
Ma v. Bryan, 997 A.2d 755 (Me. 2010) (standard for appellate review of reinstatement decisions)