In the film “The Shawshank Redemption,” an inmate named Red, played brilliantly by Morgan Freeman, is asked by a member of the parole board whether the inmate has be rehabilitated. He answers, “Rehabilitated? Well, now, let me see. You know I have no idea of what that means.” He then launches into a poignant soliloquy in which he shows not only insight into exactly what the word “rehabilitated” means, but that he is, in fact, rehabilitated.

Our present system for reinstating attorneys who have been suspended or disbarred, or who have resigned, from the practice of law is an unworkable morass that rejects the notion that rehabilitation is possible for such a person. Over the past few years, there have been 14 individuals who have applied to be reinstated to the practice of law. All 14 have been denied reinstatement after their applications have taken years to be heard and finally adjudicated. Most of the 14 applicants have spent a fortune on able counsel and experts.

Practice Book Section 2-53 governs attorney reinstatements. The rule was amended several years ago to provide deadlines so as to address the problem that these reinstatement proceedings took forever to be adjudicated. The amendments unfortunately have failed to correct this problem.

Practice Book Section 2-53 applies to attorneys who have been suspended for over one year. After the reinstatement application is filed with the clerk, and notice is issued to interested parties in various publications, the chief justice refers the application to a standing committee. Neither clerks nor the chief justice make the notice and referral a priority. Rather, it is the least pressing matter for them. Many months may pass before the notice and referral take place.

Within 60 days of the referral, the statewide grievance committee and the office of chief disciplinary counsel “shall,” in the words of the rule, file a report with the standing committee. Despite this 60-day reporting requirement, it more often is the case that an extension of time is requested and granted. The applicant is put in the difficult position of not wanting to object or consenting to such a request so as not to incur the wrath of the disciplinary authority that will decide his or her fate.

The standing committee consists of approximately a dozen attorneys from all judicial districts other than the one in which the applicant had practiced. Unlike the bar examining committee, which will adjudicate admissions cases with a panel of three of the many members of the greater committee, the standing committee meets en banc. That makes the scheduling of hearings incredibly cumbersome and difficult. It is not uncommon for six to eight months to go by before a hearing is scheduled. And it is rare that only one hearing is held. Usually, there are several hearings.

Practice Book Section 2-53 requires that the standing committee conduct its hearings and provide a report within 180 days of referral from the chief justice. That simply never happens. Again, the hapless applicant is put in the difficult position of being asked to waive the 180-day period by the very committee that is going to decide his or her application.

That 14 of the applications were all denied after each was pending for years is unacceptable, and reflects a broader, and disturbing trend in lawyer discipline. Lawyer discipline is primarily about protecting the public. It is not supposed to be about punishment, and certainly not revenge. And yet that is where the focus is presently.

The Rules Committee of the Superior Court needs to amend Practice Book Section 2-53 to make the following changes. First, there must be a deadline for the notice and referral aspects of the reinstatement proceeding. Second, all deadlines should be mandatory and cannot be waived. The applicant should not be placed in the difficult position of being asked to waive the deadlines by the very authorities that can affect the outcome of the application. Third, the standing committee should consist of three members of the greater committee. Presently, there are too many cooks in the kitchen.

If these changes cannot be made, the judiciary should just be honest and admit that once suspended or disbarred, the door for re-entry is forever closed. The Rules Committee should simply abolish Practice Book Section 2-53 and save everyone lots of time, effort, money and angst.

In the film “The Shawshank Redemption,” an inmate named Red, played brilliantly by Morgan Freeman, is asked by a member of the parole board whether the inmate has be rehabilitated. He answers, “Rehabilitated? Well, now, let me see. You know I have no idea of what that means.” He then launches into a poignant soliloquy in which he shows not only insight into exactly what the word “rehabilitated” means, but that he is, in fact, rehabilitated.

Our present system for reinstating attorneys who have been suspended or disbarred, or who have resigned, from the practice of law is an unworkable morass that rejects the notion that rehabilitation is possible for such a person. Over the past few years, there have been 14 individuals who have applied to be reinstated to the practice of law. All 14 have been denied reinstatement after their applications have taken years to be heard and finally adjudicated. Most of the 14 applicants have spent a fortune on able counsel and experts.

Practice Book Section 2-53 governs attorney reinstatements. The rule was amended several years ago to provide deadlines so as to address the problem that these reinstatement proceedings took forever to be adjudicated. The amendments unfortunately have failed to correct this problem.

Practice Book Section 2-53 applies to attorneys who have been suspended for over one year. After the reinstatement application is filed with the clerk, and notice is issued to interested parties in various publications, the chief justice refers the application to a standing committee. Neither clerks nor the chief justice make the notice and referral a priority. Rather, it is the least pressing matter for them. Many months may pass before the notice and referral take place.

Within 60 days of the referral, the statewide grievance committee and the office of chief disciplinary counsel “shall,” in the words of the rule, file a report with the standing committee. Despite this 60-day reporting requirement, it more often is the case that an extension of time is requested and granted. The applicant is put in the difficult position of not wanting to object or consenting to such a request so as not to incur the wrath of the disciplinary authority that will decide his or her fate.

The standing committee consists of approximately a dozen attorneys from all judicial districts other than the one in which the applicant had practiced. Unlike the bar examining committee, which will adjudicate admissions cases with a panel of three of the many members of the greater committee, the standing committee meets en banc. That makes the scheduling of hearings incredibly cumbersome and difficult. It is not uncommon for six to eight months to go by before a hearing is scheduled. And it is rare that only one hearing is held. Usually, there are several hearings.

Practice Book Section 2-53 requires that the standing committee conduct its hearings and provide a report within 180 days of referral from the chief justice. That simply never happens. Again, the hapless applicant is put in the difficult position of being asked to waive the 180-day period by the very committee that is going to decide his or her application.

That 14 of the applications were all denied after each was pending for years is unacceptable, and reflects a broader, and disturbing trend in lawyer discipline. Lawyer discipline is primarily about protecting the public. It is not supposed to be about punishment, and certainly not revenge. And yet that is where the focus is presently.

The Rules Committee of the Superior Court needs to amend Practice Book Section 2-53 to make the following changes. First, there must be a deadline for the notice and referral aspects of the reinstatement proceeding. Second, all deadlines should be mandatory and cannot be waived. The applicant should not be placed in the difficult position of being asked to waive the deadlines by the very authorities that can affect the outcome of the application. Third, the standing committee should consist of three members of the greater committee. Presently, there are too many cooks in the kitchen.

If these changes cannot be made, the judiciary should just be honest and admit that once suspended or disbarred, the door for re-entry is forever closed. The Rules Committee should simply abolish Practice Book Section 2-53 and save everyone lots of time, effort, money and angst.