Matter of Rowe, 73 N.Y.2d 336 (1989)

An attorney suspended from practice due to mental disability is entitled to a hearing on their application for reinstatement when they present prima facie evidence that the disability has been removed.

Summary

Rowe, an attorney suspended due to a mental disability, sought reinstatement after being unconditionally discharged from court-ordered psychiatric care. The Appellate Division denied his application without a hearing. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that due process requires a hearing when a suspended attorney presents prima facie evidence that their disability has been removed. The court reasoned that suspension due to disability is not punitive, and the attorney retains a property interest in their license, distinguishing it from disbarment for misconduct.

Facts

Rowe, an attorney, was suspended from practice in 1978 due to mental disability, following an acquittal on criminal charges by reason of mental disease or defect. He was initially confined to mental health facilities but later discharged under the condition of outpatient psychotherapy. In 1988, after being unconditionally discharged from mandated psychiatric care, Rowe again applied for reinstatement.

Procedural History

The Appellate Division, Second Department, initially denied Rowe’s first application for reinstatement in 1985, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. After Rowe was unconditionally discharged from psychiatric care, he applied again. The Appellate Division denied this second application without a hearing. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether an attorney suspended from practice due to mental disability is entitled to a hearing on an application for reinstatement when the attorney presents prima facie evidence that the disability has been removed.

Holding

Yes, because due process requires a hearing to resolve the factual question of whether the disability has been removed and to determine, on the whole record, whether the attorney is fit to practice law, when the attorney presents prima facie proof, by clear and convincing evidence, that the disability has been removed.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that an attorney suspended for mental disability holds a different position than a disbarred attorney. Disbarment is a punishment for violating the public trust, whereas suspension for disability is a precautionary measure. Furthermore, an attorney suspended for disability retains a property interest in their license, unlike a disbarred attorney. The court stated, “In addition, unlike a disbarred attorney, an attorney suspended because of medical disability retains a protected property interest in his license during the period of suspension.” The court emphasized that due process requires a hearing when a first-time applicant to the bar is denied admission based on unfitness. The court analogized the situation of an attorney suspended for disability who presents evidence of recovery: “Inasmuch as petitioner was suspended because of his disability and his application for reinstatement presents prima facie proof, by clear and convincing evidence, that the disability has been removed, due process requires a hearing to resolve that question of fact, and to enable the court to determine on the whole record whether he is fit to practice law.” The court therefore reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the matter for further proceedings, including a hearing.