In In re Reinstatement of Weiderholt,  the supreme court held that the court has the inherent authority to independently determine reasonable and relevant reinstatement conditions for a formerly disbarred attorney. After disbarred attorney Weiderholt’s fourth petition, the Bar Association Area Hearing Committee (“Committee”) recommended his reinstatement. 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. Weiderholt objected to these conditions to his reinstatement. 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. 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. 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.