Facing the Klieg Lights: Understanding the "Good Moral Character"

CLEMENSFINAL.DOC
3/30/2007 12:51:01 PM
286 AKRON LAW REVIEW [40:255
candor have resulted in denial. 319 Attempted armed robbery where an
applicant exchanged gunfire with a bank guard, “a criminal transgression
of a most serious nature,” mandated “full and complete evidence of
rehabilitation sufficient to clearly demonstrate the existence of present
good moral character fitness for admission.” 320
The bar takes sexual assault seriously, yet even sexual abuse of a
minor, which could result in disbarment, might not result in automatic or
permanent denial. 321 Rape and robbery committed as a juvenile,
however, have been sufficient to deny admission where accompanied by
lack of candor to the law school and by a lack of rehabilitation. 322 A
sodomy conviction was not necessarily disqualifying even though it was
an illegal act. 323
4. Narcotics Convictions or Activity Impacting Admission
Drug law violations can result in denial for deficient character 324
because, as one author noted, attorneys are “held to a high standard of
conduct, particularly with respect to upholding the law . . . .” 325 Drug
convictions do not mandate rejection, 326 but the bar may find deficient
character without conviction. 327 Heroin 328 and cocaine 329 related
319. In re Adams, 540 S.E.2d 609, 610 (Ga. 2001). But see In re Newhall, 532 N.Y.S.2d 179
(N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).
320. Blum, supra note 241, at § 14 (citing In re George B., 466 A.2d 1286, 1286 (Md. Ct. App.
1983)) (finding six years after release from prison was not enough time to establish rehabilitation).
321. In re Hinson-Lyles, 864 So.2d 108, 112 (La. 2003) (reversing recommendation of
conditional admission for applicant with felony sexual offense on juvenile); but see id. at 115
(Kimball, J., dissenting).
[T]he record clearly reveals that the applicant overwhelmingly proved that her character
has been rehabilitated and that such inclination or instability is unlikely to recur in the
future. . . . [T]his appears to be an unusual case with extraordinary facts . . . the
applicant has produced an impressive amount of evidence proving that she has good
moral character and the fitness necessary to practice law . . . .
Id.
322. Blum, supra note 241, at § 14 (citing In re Childress, 561 N.E.2d 614 (Ill. 1990)). In
Childress, the applicant admitted providing false answers on his law school application because “he
feared that he would be dismissed from law school if he responded to the questions truthfully.”
Childress, 561 N.E.2d at 617.
323. Blum, supra note 241, at § 15 (citing In re Kimball, 301 N.E.2d 436 (N.Y. Ct. App.
1973)).
324. See Kristine Cordier Karnezis, Narcotics Conviction as Crime of Moral Turpitude
Justifying Disbarment or Other Disciplinary Action Against Attorney, 99 A.L.R.3d 288 (2005).
325. Id. at § 1.
326. Blum, supra note 241, at § 4 (citing In re Rowell, 754 P.2d 905 (Or. 1988)).
327. Karnezis, supra note 324, at § 1 (citing Fla. Bar v. Price, 478 So.2d 812 (Fla. 1985)).
328. Id. (citing In Re Shepard, 170 P. 442 (Cal. Ct. App. 1917)); see also, id. (citing In re
Floyd, 492 S.E.2d 791 (S.C. 1997)); see also Blum, supra note 241, at § 14 (citing Nall v. Bd. of