The opening paragraphs of In the Matter of Dionne Larrel Wade (D-132-20) (085931) (Decided June 7, 2022) reads like a lamentation that our Supreme Court feels uncomfortably constrained by the harshness of In re Wilson, 81 N.J. 451 (1979). It lauds Dionne Wade's virtues. Then it reiterates that Wilson calls for the automatic disbarment of attorneys who knowingly misappropriate client funds. There is no hint in Wilson of the possibility for redemption. To the extent that it does not, we believe that Wilson should be modified because it was too narrowly decided.

This board is not alone in that point of view. Forty-one states plus the District of Columbia allow attorneys to apply to be reinstated after they have been disbarred. Thirty-one of those jurisdictions permit attorneys to apply for readmission five years after disbarment. There is no reason to suspect that the courts in these 41 jurisdiction are any less concerned for the well-being of their citizenry than is ours. Providing an opportunity for forgiveness is consistent with a recommendation of the American Bar Association (Rule 25 Model Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement), which also proposes criteria for reinstatement, including compliance with all prior disciplinary orders; rehabilitative treatment for physical or mental infirmity, including alcohol or drug abuse; recognition of the wrongfulness and seriousness of the prior misconduct; proof of the requisite honesty and integrity to practice law; competency to practice; and, in some jurisdictions, passage of the bar examination and character and fitness examination. We endorse the ABA's position.