In the Matter of Ainsworth (Review Dept. 1998) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 894

Overview

This reinstatement proceeding arose after attorney Jonathan Bass Ainsworth sought readmission to the California State Bar following his disbarment in 1988. The Review Department affirmed denial of reinstatement, concluding that the petitioner failed to prove rehabilitation, present moral fitness, and present learning and ability in the law by clear and convincing evidence.

Key Facts

Between 1979 and 1984, Ainsworth engaged in serious professional misconduct across eight separate client matters. The California Supreme Court disbarred him after finding numerous violations including intentional deceit toward courts, breach of fiduciary duties, fee splitting with a non-lawyer, improper settlement conduct, practicing while suspended, and harassment of a former client.

In 1995, Ainsworth petitioned for reinstatement. Although he passed the Professional Responsibility Examination and presented character testimony and evidence of volunteer activities, the hearing judge recommended denial, finding insufficient rehabilitation and inadequate present legal competence.

Prior Misconduct

The misconduct underlying the disbarment included intentionally misleading a judicial officer, failing to communicate with clients, collecting illegal fees, entering into conflicts of interest, issuing insufficient-fund checks, and engaging in conduct involving moral turpitude. In one particularly serious matter, the attorney falsely accused a former client of criminal acts after withdrawing representation.

Legal Standards for Reinstatement

An attorney seeking reinstatement must prove by clear and convincing evidence:

• Rehabilitation
• Present moral qualifications
• Present learning and ability in the law
• Successful completion of the Professional Responsibility Examination

The burden remains on the petitioner throughout the proceeding, including on review.

Failure to Prove Rehabilitation

The court found Ainsworth failed to demonstrate rehabilitation because he consistently minimized his misconduct, described ethical violations as mere mistakes, and repeatedly attacked the legitimacy of his disbarment through extensive collateral litigation. The court emphasized that rehabilitation requires genuine insight, acceptance of wrongdoing, and sustained exemplary conduct.

Failure to Establish Present Moral Fitness

Although character witnesses—including judges and attorneys—testified favorably and the petitioner described volunteer work, the court held that such evidence was not dispositive. The petitioner’s continued denial of wrongdoing demonstrated a lack of appreciation for the seriousness of his ethical violations, undermining any showing of present moral qualifications.

Lack of Present Legal Ability and Learning

The court also concluded that the petitioner lacked current legal competence. His pleadings demonstrated fundamental misunderstandings of evidentiary rules, improper reliance on excluded materials, distorted interpretations of legal standards, and exaggerated accusations against participants in his prior proceedings. These deficiencies showed he lacked the professional judgment and litigation skills required for reinstatement.

Holding

The Review Department affirmed denial of reinstatement, holding that Ainsworth failed to prove rehabilitation, present moral fitness, and current legal competence by clear and convincing evidence.

Key Takeaways

• Reinstatement requires full acceptance of wrongdoing—not minimization.
• Character testimony alone cannot establish moral rehabilitation.
• Legal competence is evaluated through the quality of pleadings and advocacy.
• The burden of proof remains on the petitioner at all stages.

Sanctions Table