A failed effort at reinstatement from a disability-based suspension is described in a Hearing Panel report.

In such proceedings, the focus is on remediation of the disability. 

A bad way to start

At the outset of the hearing, the court reporter asked the petitioner for her driver’s license or other proof of identity. The petitioner indicated that she could not comply, and stated that she had left her wallet at home. The petitioner then proceeded to testify, after being identified on the record by her attorney and by assistant bar counsel.

And worse

Sh0rtly after the hearing, on March 9, 2016, bar counsel moved to reopen the record citing, as grounds, that the petitioner had been arrested the Friday before the Monday reinstatement hearing (March 4, 2016) for OUI, negligent operation of a motor vehicle, and leaving the scene of an accident with damage. The petitioner’s arrest was reportable in response to [reinstatement questions]…the petitioner was obligated to timely supplement her prior answers to disclose the arrest…The petitioner did not oppose the motion and the hearing panel chair allowed it on March 22, 2016.

Thereafter, on March 26,2016, the petitioner moved for leave to withdraw her petition for reinstatement without prejudice. She included with this motion an affidavit in which she acknowledged that she had neglected seasonably to supplement her responses to the restatement questionnaire, among them question 3J asking whether she had ever been arrested. Bar counsel did not oppose the motion to withdraw.

Petitioner was questioned at the hearing about her anxiety disorder

When asked what controls she had in place to prevent this sort of thing from happening again, she testified specifically and emphatically that she intended “not to have another nervous breakdown. I mean to put it bluntly by seeing my therapist and putting things in order … that prevents me from not ending up in a situation. And I’m just being extremely honest.”

The committee

On this record, we cannot say that the petitioner’s disability which, per her own description, caused her not to be “as cognizant or careful as [usual],” (Tr. 1 :43–44)) is not still active. It goes without saying that such a disability adversely affects the ability to practice law. The petitioner has not convinced us that she is ready to be held out to the public as fully recovered and trustworthy.

(Mike Frisch)