Must disbarred attorneys comply with both admissions rules and discipline rules when seeking readmission? In re A. Paul Schwenke Explained

In In re A. Paul Schwenke, the Utah Supreme Court addressed an important question about the readmission process for previously disbarred attorneys: whether they must comply with both the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar (RGA) and Rule 25 of the Rules of Lawyer Discipline and Disability (RLDD).

Background and Facts

A. Paul Schwenke was disbarred in 1993 for misappropriating client funds and ordered to pay $97,250 in restitution. In 2001, he applied for readmission to the Utah State Bar. The Character and Fitness Committee denied his application based on his prior theft of client funds, pending civil actions, unsatisfied judgments, and multiple DUI arrests. Schwenke argued that his readmission should be governed solely by RLDD Rule 25, which gives district courts jurisdiction over reinstatement, rather than the standard admissions process under the RGA.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed whether the RGA and RLDD are mutually exclusive when applied to previously disbarred attorneys seeking readmission. Schwenke contended that Rule 25 of the RLDD replaced the RGA requirements and that the Character and Fitness Committee applied an improper standard. He also raised procedural challenges regarding the timing of the district court proceedings.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court held that both bodies of rules apply to disbarred attorneys seeking readmission. The court explained that disbarment places an attorney “in the same position as if he had never been admitted to practice,” requiring compliance with standard admissions procedures. However, Rule 25 of the RLDD provides additional requirements that supplement, rather than replace, the RGA procedures. The court found the standards in both rules to be compatible, noting that Rule 25’s “notwithstanding” language does not preclude consideration of prior conduct but merely indicates it won’t be determinative.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that attorneys seeking readmission after disbarment face a dual compliance requirement. They must satisfy both the character and fitness investigation under the RGA and the specific conditions outlined in RLDD Rule 25. Practitioners should ensure proper service of readmission petitions directly on the Office of Professional Conduct, as service on general receptionists may be insufficient. The court also emphasized that procedural time limits in Rule 25 are important but that missed deadlines don’t eliminate the requirement for hearings when the OPC objects to readmission.