The Maryland Supreme Court has reinstated attorney Robert Paul Pratz to the state bar, granting his petition for reinstatement in an order issued Jan. 23, 2026. Chief Justice Matthew J. Fader signed the order restoring Pratz's ability to practice law in Maryland.
The court's order, filed under AG No. 33 for the September Term 2025, states that the petition is granted after consideration of both Pratz's reinstatement request and Bar Counsel's response to the petition. The involvement of Bar Counsel indicates that the Maryland State Bar Association weighed in on whether Pratz should be allowed to return to practice.
"Upon consideration of Robert Paul Pratz's petition for reinstatement and Bar Counsel's response to the petition," the court wrote, "it is ordered that the petition is granted." The order further directs that "Robert Paul Pratz is reinstated as a member of the Bar of Maryland."
While the court order does not specify the reasons for Pratz's original suspension or disbarment, attorney reinstatement proceedings typically follow disciplinary actions for professional misconduct. The Maryland Supreme Court handles attorney discipline matters and petitions for reinstatement under its administrative jurisdiction over the state bar.
Bar reinstatement is a formal process that requires attorneys to petition the court and demonstrate their fitness to return to practice. The process often involves showing rehabilitation, compliance with any disciplinary sanctions, and meeting continuing legal education requirements. Bar Counsel, which represents the interests of the legal profession and public protection, reviews these petitions and provides recommendations to the court.
The court's order requires the Clerk of the Court to provide notice of the reinstatement "in accordance with Rule 19-761." This Maryland court rule governs the procedural requirements for notifying the legal community and public of changes in attorney status, including reinstatements.
Rule 19-761 typically requires publication of attorney discipline and reinstatement orders to ensure transparency in the regulation of the legal profession. This notification process serves multiple purposes: informing other attorneys, potential clients, and the courts of changes in attorney standing, and maintaining public confidence in the legal system's oversight of attorney conduct.
Reinstatement orders are relatively uncommon compared to initial disciplinary actions, as they require attorneys to successfully navigate a formal petition process and convince the court of their rehabilitation and fitness to practice. The fact that Bar Counsel responded to Pratz's petition suggests the state bar association conducted a thorough review of his request.
The timing of the reinstatement, coming in January 2026 for a petition filed in the September 2025 term, indicates the court took several months to consider the matter. This timeframe is typical for reinstatement proceedings, which often involve careful review of an attorney's conduct since the disciplinary action and assessment of their current fitness to practice.
Pratz's successful reinstatement means he can now resume practicing law in Maryland, subject to any conditions the court may have imposed. Reinstated attorneys often face ongoing monitoring or restrictions on their practice, though the court's order does not specify any such conditions in this case.
The Maryland Supreme Court's handling of attorney discipline and reinstatement reflects the legal profession's commitment to self-regulation while protecting public interests. The court balances the goal of maintaining professional standards with providing opportunities for rehabilitation and redemption for attorneys who have addressed past misconduct.
For Pratz, the reinstatement represents a successful conclusion to what was likely a lengthy process of demonstrating his fitness to return to practice. Reinstated attorneys often must rebuild their careers and reestablish trust with clients and colleagues after periods of suspension or disbarment.
The court's order becomes effective immediately, allowing Pratz to resume his legal practice in Maryland. The Clerk's required notification under Rule 19-761 will formally announce the reinstatement to the broader legal community and ensure proper updating of attorney records and directories.
This reinstatement adds to the ongoing administrative work of the Maryland Supreme Court in overseeing attorney conduct and maintaining the integrity of the legal profession in the state. The court regularly handles disciplinary matters and reinstatement petitions as part of its supervisory authority over Maryland's legal practitioners.