In re Reinstatement of Weiderholt

[ETHICS

In In re Reinstatement of Weiderholt, [1] the supreme court held that the court has the inherent authority to independently determine reasonable and relevant reinstatement conditions for a formerly disbarred attorney.[2] After disbarred attorney Weiderholt’s fourth petition, the Bar Association Area Hearing Committee (“Committee”) recommended his reinstatement.[3] The Disciplinary Board (“Board”) conditionally agreed, recommending that Weiderholt have a professional mentor for three years as well as a disclosure requirement to future clients regarding his prior disbarment.[4] Weiderholt objected to these conditions to his reinstatement.[5] Adopting the first condition only, the supreme court reasoned that a three-year mentorship was reasonable because it promoted the attorney’s rehabilitation, protected the public and maintained the legal profession’s integrity.[6] In contrast, it reasoned that requiring Weiderholt to disclose his disbarment was not reasonable or relevant because it contradicted the idea that a reinstated attorney was rehabilitated and qualified to practice law again.[7] Independently reviewing the record, the supreme court granted Weiderholt’s reinstatement petition, holding it only be conditioned upon a three-year mentorship with a practicing attorney.[8]


[1] 295 P.3d 396 (Alaska 2013).

[2] Id. at 401.

[3] Id. at 397–98.

[4] Id. at 398.

[5] Id.

[6] Id. at 402.

[7] Id. at 402–03.

[8] Id. at 403.

In re Reinstatement of Weiderholt

[ETHICS

In In re Reinstatement of Weiderholt, [1] the supreme court held that the court has the inherent authority to independently determine reasonable and relevant reinstatement conditions for a formerly disbarred attorney.[2] After disbarred attorney Weiderholt’s fourth petition, the Bar Association Area Hearing Committee (“Committee”) recommended his reinstatement.[3] The Disciplinary Board (“Board”) conditionally agreed, recommending that Weiderholt have a professional mentor for three years as well as a disclosure requirement to future clients regarding his prior disbarment.[4] Weiderholt objected to these conditions to his reinstatement.[5] Adopting the first condition only, the supreme court reasoned that a three-year mentorship was reasonable because it promoted the attorney’s rehabilitation, protected the public and maintained the legal profession’s integrity.[6] In contrast, it reasoned that requiring Weiderholt to disclose his disbarment was not reasonable or relevant because it contradicted the idea that a reinstated attorney was rehabilitated and qualified to practice law again.[7] Independently reviewing the record, the supreme court granted Weiderholt’s reinstatement petition, holding it only be conditioned upon a three-year mentorship with a practicing attorney.[8]


[1] 295 P.3d 396 (Alaska 2013).

[2] Id. at 401.

[3] Id. at 397–98.

[4] Id. at 398.

[5] Id.

[6] Id. at 402.

[7] Id. at 402–03.

[8] Id. at 403.