Reinstatement On Hold

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court has remanded the decision of a single justice that a suspended attorney had established the criteria for reinstatement

Here, when analyzing the Rule 29(e)(4) criterion, the single justice addressed only the first part of the analysis in finding that Prolman “recognizes the wrongfulness and seriousness of the conduct for which he was suspended.” The single justice referred to Prolman’s recognition that his past actions were wrong but did not address the second question—whether Prolman “is capable of identifying similar conduct as wrongful in the future.” Bailey, 2014 ME 58, ¶ 19, 90 A.3d 1137; see Prolman I, 2018 ME 128, ¶ 26, 193 A.3d 808 (requiring Prolman “to apply for readmission upon demonstration of a thorough understanding of the ethical obligations of a Maine attorney” (emphasis added)). Given the single justice’s other findings concerning his “staggering” lack of insight, awareness, and judgment when a problematic situation arose, the single justice could have found that Prolman was not sufficiently rehabilitated had she undertaken the full analysis. The failure to address the second part of the Bailey analysis requires us to vacate the reinstatement order.

The remand is back to the single justice

In summary, although the record fully supports the single justice’s well-stated findings of fact, it does not support the conclusion derived from those findings that Prolman proved compliance with the July 2019 order by clear and convincing evidence. On remand, we leave for the single justice in the first instance the questions of whether pursuant to Rule 29(g) there is good and sufficient reason to reinstate Prolman despite his failure to comply with Rule 29(e)(1) and whether Prolman “is capable of identifying similar conduct as wrongful in the future” as required by 29(e)(4). Bailey, 2014 ME 58, ¶ 19, 90 A.3d 1157.

(Mike Frisch)