In a 22-page decision issued late November, a split 5-4 State of Maine Board of Bar Examiners concluded that “Mr. Bailey has not met his burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that he possesses the requisite good character and fitness necessary for admission to the Maine Bar.”
In dissent, four members of the board wrote that Bailey had demonstrated “by clear and convincing evidence that he has the moral qualifications, competency and learning in the law and has otherwise satisfied the factors established by the Maine bar.”
The majority cited a rule of the Maine Bar which holds that an attorney disbarred in any other state would be treated “as if the attorney has been disbarred also in Maine.”
Out of the six factors of the Board, one went consistently against Bailey – the factor where Board members are to determine whether “the petitioner recognizes the wrongfulness and seriousness of the misconduct.”
However, Bailey always claimed that his disbarment was wrongful and he was not to be blamed. Accordingly, the majority wrote, “Rather than accepting that he was disbarred because of his own misconduct, Bailey continues to place blame elsewhere.”
The majority also commented that Bailey was “less than forthright” with the Board throughout the admissions process, and denied him admission to the Maine bar.
