IN RE: Sheridan MARTIN (2026)

ORDER VACATING AND REMANDING

We determined that it was appropriate for us to review the Board of Governors’ decision to deny Sheridan Martin's motion for reinstatement and ordered briefing. After receiving briefing, on our own motion we struck the brief provided by the Office of Bar Counsel (OBC) as it failed to contain ample citations to the record and ordered it to show cause why Martin's motion for reinstatement was subject to a more than twelve year delay before he received a hearing, primarily while the matter was pending for investigation before the Character and Fitness Committee, which conducted three separate investigations. While we are satisfied that the OBC had no control over this delay, such a delay was highly inappropriate and unwarranted.

We recognize that Martin's reinstatement process was begun and continued under previous rules under which the Character and Fitness Committee was responsible for the investigatory process and was never subject to any timeline for completion. We hope that the enactment of Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 3.502, which became effective on April 1, 2022, and provides in part that once an application is complete “a scheduling order shall be entered setting out the time for the Office of Bar Counsel to investigate the application,” will result in a more expeditious investigation process with further accountability.

Having considered the OBC's response to our order to show cause, the OBC's new brief in reply to the notice of review, Sheridan Martin's response, Martin's new brief in reply and appendix, and the record, we conclude that the Board of Governors failed to appropriately support its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation with specific citations to the record. This is partially attributable to the Character and Fitness Committee's abject failure to appropriately support its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation with citations to the record. Martin is entitled to appropriate, timely process and consideration of his request for reinstatement, which thus far he has not received.

Accordingly, we VACATE the Board of Governors’ Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation, and ORDER it to reconsider whether Martin should be reinstated. In making such an evaluation, the Board of Governors is required to consider the briefing received by our Court as detailed supra. While Martin's underlying offenses that led to his suspension are very serious, his actions since that time must be carefully evaluated. If he were to be reinstated, conditions to that reinstatement may be warranted to protect the public. Appropriate safeguards could be imposed either by the Board of Governors in a reinstatement order or through a negotiated order.

/s/ Debra Hembree Lambert

 CHIEF JUSTICE

All sitting. All concur.