IN RE: Dwight A. COSBY (2021)

Supreme Court of Indiana.2021-01-08No. Supreme Court Case No. 10S00-0503-DI-88

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court granted Cosby's petition for reinstatement and reinstated him as a member of the Indiana bar effective as of the date of the order.

Dwight A. Cosby sought reinstatement to the Indiana bar after being suspended in 2006 for a period of no less than nine months without automatic reinstatement. He filed his reinstatement petition in May 2019, and a hearing officer was appointed to evaluate his application. Following an evidentiary hearing, the hearing officer issued a report in October 2020 recommending reinstatement, and neither party filed a petition challenging that recommendation.

To grant reinstatement, the court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner demonstrates genuine desire to resume practice, has not practiced law during the suspension period, complied with all discipline terms, shows sincere remorse, maintained exemplary conduct since discipline, understands professional standards, is fit to be trusted with client matters, and (if applicable) has resolved any underlying health or substance-abuse issues. The court accepted the hearing officer's findings and determined that Cosby satisfied all necessary requirements.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether suspended attorney demonstrated good faith desire to resume practice
Whether attorney complied with all discipline terms and conditions
Whether attorney's conduct since discipline was exemplary and showed genuine remorse
Whether attorney is fit and safe to return to legal practice

Procedural posture

Cosby appealed from his 2006 suspension by filing a reinstatement petition in 2019, which was evaluated by an appointed hearing officer following an evidentiary hearing.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Published Order Granting Reinstatement to the Practice of Law

On March 10, 2006, this Court suspended Petitioner for not less than nine months without automatic reinstatement, effective April 15, 2006. Petitioner filed a petition for reinstatement on May 24, 2019, and we appointed a hearing officer. Following an evidentiary hearing, the hearing officer issued a report on October 13, 2020, recommending that Petitioner be reinstated to the practice of law in Indiana. Neither party has filed a petition for review.

A petition for reinstatement may be granted only if the petitioner proves by clear and convincing evidence that:

(1) The petitioner desires in good faith to obtain restoration of his or her privilege to practice law;

(2) The petitioner has not practiced law in this State or attempted to do so since he or she was disciplined;

(3) The petitioner has complied fully with the terms of the order for discipline;

(4) The petitioners attitude towards the misconduct for which he or she was disciplined is one of genuine remorse;

(5) The petitioners conduct since the discipline was imposed has been exemplary and above reproach;

(6) The petitioner has a proper understanding of and attitude towards the standards that are imposed upon members of the bar and will conduct himself or herself in conformity with such standards;

(7) The petitioner can safely be recommended to the legal profession, the courts, and the public as a person fit to be consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise act in matters of trust and confidence, and in general to aid in the administration of justice as a member of the bar and an officer of the Courts; and

(8) The disability has been removed, if the discipline was imposed by reason of physical or mental illness or infirmity, or for use of or addiction to intoxicants or drugs.

Admis. Disc. R. 23(18)(b)(3).

This Court, being duly advised, finds that the recommendation of the hearing officer should be accepted. The Court therefore GRANTS the petition for reinstatement and REINSTATES Petitioner as a member of the Indiana bar as of the date of this order.

Petitioner shall pay any costs owing under Admis. Disc. R. 23(21)(b). The hearing officer appointed in this case is discharged with the Courts appreciation.

All Justices concur.