In re Edwin R. Jonas III Petition for Reinstatement to the Me. Bar

• Decision Date: 22 June 2015
• Docket Number: DOCKET NO. BAR-13-16
• Parties: In re: Edwin R. Jonas III Petition for Reinstatement to the Maine Bar
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

In re: Edwin R. Jonas III Petition for Reinstatement to the Maine Bar

DOCKET NO. BAR-13-16

STATE OF MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT

June 22, 2015

JUDGMENT

Edwin R. Jonas III has filed a petition for reinstatement to the Maine bar pursuant to M. Bar R. 7.3(j). I conducted a de novo hearing in the matter on April 27 and 28, 2015. See M. Bar R. 7.3(j)(6). Jonas personally appeared at the hearing, and was represented by James M. Bowie, Esq. Deputy Bar Counsel Aria Eee, Esq., represented the Board of Overseers of the Bar. The following witnesses testified at the hearing: Jonas, Frederick Popovitch, Edward Murphy, Roderick Hannah, and Philip Defelice.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURE

I have considered the testimony of witnesses presented during the de novo hearing in April, the documents admitted in evidence at that hearing, the findings and conclusions made by various courts in prior proceedings in which Jonas was a party, and the parties' arguments. To ensure that the basis for my findings is clear, in various places throughout this decision, I have included citations to the record evidence and Jonas's litigation history on which I relied in making those

Page 2

findings.¹ Some of the cases were specifically provided by the parties at hearing, and others were found in electronic databases that are publicly available.

Based on the evidence presented at the de novo hearing, I make the following factual findings by clear and convincing evidence. See M. Bar R. 7.3(j)(5). Jonas graduated from law school in 1974. That same year, he was admitted to the bar of Pennsylvania, and was then admitted to the bar of New Jersey in 1975. He engaged in private practice in Pennsylvania, and then in New Jersey.

In 1987, Jonas took and passed the Maine bar exam and was admitted to the Maine bar. Shortly thereafter, he and his wife separated. A contentious and protracted series of divorce proceedings followed, spanning multiple decades and several jurisdictions. It is Jonas's conduct during these proceedings that ultimately led to his professional disciplinary troubles. In re Jonas, No. DRB 05-170 (N.J. Disciplinary Review Bd. Sept. 2, 2005), aff'd, 889 A.2d 1055 (N.J. 2006); Pl. Ex. 10.

A. New Jersey

Jonas and his wife, Linda, divorced in 1990. In re Jonas, No. DRB 05-170 (N.J. Disciplinary Review Bd. Sept. 2, 2005). At the time, they had three minor children. In re Jonas, No. DRB 05-170 (N.J. Disciplinary Review Bd.

Page 3

Sept. 2, 2005); Jonas v. Jonas, No. DV-09-388 (Mont. 20th Jud. Dist. Ct. July 3, 2014); Bd. Ex. 21.

Post-judgment litigation between Jonas and Linda continued through the first half of the 1990s. Linda moved several times to enforce the divorce judgment. Jonas v. Jonas, No. FM-04-259-89, Docket (N.J. Family Ct.). Jonas, in turn, filed numerous motions to reduce his spousal support obligation, to reconsider, to stay enforcement, for a change of venue, to compel Linda to undergo an evaluation by a vocation/rehabilitation expert, and the like, resulting in three separate appeals to the New Jersey Appellate Division between 1990 and 1995. Jonas v. Jonas, No. FM-04-259-89, Docket (N.J. Family Ct.); Jonas v. Jonas, No. A-3734-95-T5/A-1950-96-T5 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Dec. 19, 1997); Pl. Ex. 23. The New Jersey Supreme Court also denied Jonas's petition for certiorari in 1992. Jonas v. Jonas, 614 A.2d 618 (N.J. 1992). By 1995, custody of the children had been awarded to Jonas, and Linda had been ordered to pay him child support. As Jonas explained during the hearing, her obligation to pay him, however, was offset by his obligation to pay her spousal support.

In 1995, a series of decisions that Jonas had made was discovered, changing the course of his life. Apparently tired of being required to pay what he considered to be an unfair amount of spousal support, Jonas took action to undermine the divorce judgment, avoid his support obligations, misrepresent his

Page 4

financial status, and interfere with Linda's contact with the children. In re Jonas, No. DRB 05-170 (N.J. Disciplinary Review Bd. Sept. 2, 2005); Jonas v. Jonas, No. A-3734-95-T5/A-1950-96-T5 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Dec. 19, 1997).

On August 10, 1995, while the parties were in court to dispute their most recent competing motions concerning child support and spousal support obligations, Linda moved for an order to show cause with the New Jersey Superior Court. In that document, Linda asserted that Jonas was secretly liquidating assets and hiding those proceeds in accounts in the Cayman Islands, and that he planned to move with the children to the Cayman Islands. Jonas v. Jonas, No. A-3734-95-T5/A-1950-96-T5 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Dec. 19, 1997). Jonas denied Linda's claims, characterizing them as "absolutely outrageous, frivolous, hysterical, and ridiculous." In re Jonas, No. DRB 05-170 (N.J. Disciplinary Review Bd. Sept. 2, 2005); Jonas v. Jonas, No. A-3734-95-T5/A-1950-96-T5 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Dec. 19, 1997).

The court (Page, J.), apparently having accepted Jonas's representations that he had no plan to liquidate assets or remove the children from the United States, denied Linda's request that custody of the children be immediately granted to her; denied her request that their passports be surrendered; denied her request that Jonas be required to post a bond; and set the matter for a hearing to be held on September 21, 1995. To maintain the status quo until that hearing could be

Page 5

conducted, the court did issue an order on August 10, 1995, requiring that the children could not be removed from a five-state area consisting of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, and prohibiting Jonas from transferring any assets valued at over $15,000. In re Jonas, No. DRB 05-170 (N.J. Disciplinary Review Bd. Sept. 2, 2005); Jonas v. Jonas, No. A-3734-95-T5/A-1950-96-T5 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Dec. 19, 1997).

Shortly thereafter, Jonas filed a motion to vacate that order. In response, Linda filed affidavits indicating, inter alia, that, contrary to Jonas's assertions, he was negotiating to sell an income-producing asset. The court ordered that Linda's counsel hold the children's passports until further order.

Jonas's response was to seek Judge Page's recusal and a change of venue. The court denied both motions, and the previously-scheduled hearing was held over three days during September of 1995. Jonas failed to appear at the hearing, despite having been given notice of the hearing. Jonas's attorney, Frederick Popovitch, represented to the court that he did not know where Jonas was. Jonas v. Jonas, No. A-3734-95-T5/A-1950-96-T5 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Dec. 19, 1997). When Attorney Popovitch testified in April of 2015, he stated that "unbeknownst to [him], [Jonas] had been planning to flee with the two younger boys."

Page 6

The evidence presented in hearings through 1995 demonstrated that Linda's concerns regarding Jonas's management of his assets and accounts were well founded:

• By the time Linda sought relief, Jonas had sold his office building and had removed his belongings from the building. In re Jonas, No. DRB 05-170 (N.J. Disciplinary Review Bd. Sept. 2, 2005); Jonas v. Jonas, No. A-3734-95-T5/A-1950-96-T5 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Dec. 19, 1997).

• Soon after the August 10, 1995, order prohibiting him from transferring property valued above $15,000, Jonas obtained a $130,000 mortgage on his residential property in New Jersey and transferred those funds to an account in the Cayman Islands. In re Jonas, No. DRB 05-170 (N.J. Disciplinary Review Bd. Sept. 2, 2005).

• Although he had assured the court that he had no intent to liquidate or transfer further assets, and in direct violation of the August 10, 1995, order prohibiting him from doing so, Jonas purported to create a trust to benefit the children, named his sister and a friend as co-trustees, and transferred the deed to his New Jersey home into that trust. Jonas v. Jonas, No. A-3734-95-T5/A-1950-96-T5 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Dec. 19, 1997); Pl. Ex. 20.

• Although he denied selling or listing for sale a commercial building he rented out as a 7-Eleven convenience store, Jonas already had taken steps toward selling or refinancing that property, and continued those efforts even a day or two after the August 10, 1995, order was issued. In re Jonas, No. DRB 05-170 (N.J. Disciplinary Review Bd. Sept. 2, 2005); Jonas v. Jonas, No. A-3734-95-T5/A-1950-96-T5 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Dec. 19, 1997).

• Later that month, Jonas deeded the 7-Eleven store to his sister and friend to be held in trust for the children. In re Jonas, No. DRB 05-170 (N.J. Disciplinary Review Bd. Sept. 2, 2005).

• Jonas moved his and the children's belongings from his New Jersey home to a location in Pennsylvania near his sister. In re Jonas, No. DRB 05-170 (N.J. Disciplinary Review Bd. Sept. 2, 2005); Jonas v. Jonas, No. A-3734-

Page 7

95-T5/A-1950-96-T5 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Dec. 19, 1997). In fact, Jonas had asked movers to load the belongings from the back of the home at night, so as not to be seen; the movers refused. In re Jonas, No. DRB 05-170 (N.J. Disciplinary Review Bd. Sept. 2, 2005).

• Jonas secretly kept a total of $438,000 in a bank account in the Cayman Islands. In re Jonas, No. DRB 05-170 (N.J. Disciplinary Review Bd. Sept. 2, 2005); Jonas v. Jonas, No. A-3734-95-T5/A-1950-96-T5 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Dec. 19, 1997).

...