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

CLEMENSFINAL.DOC
3/30/2007 12:51:01 PM
2007] THE “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” EXAMINATION 309
requirements may eventually be challenged as exclusionary rules lacking
minimum rationality. 519 Even if admission regulations are remnants of
discriminatory practices that may soon fade away, 520 the requirement
exists now. Thus, any pragmatic potential applicant with concerns
should first contact an attorney familiar with admission to the targeted
jurisdiction.
An applicant must be candid and complete when communicating
with retained counsel and the bar. Failure to disclose compounds all
problems. Lack of complete candor during the character examination is
often a key justification for denial of bar admission. Before meeting
with counsel, all necessary documents must be assembled, reviewed, and
then provided to the attorney. Proactivity is key. Securing official
copies of all government records an applicant may need can take a long
time. Once a targeted jurisdiction or jurisdictions have been selected, an
applicant should examine those bar applications to discover what
documents are needed to fully answer all required questions. Securing
these records before answering any questions is important because no
applicant has a perfect memory. If an applicant omits something in any
testimony or statement to the bar, or even in any other official disclosure
such as a law school application or a student-attorney admission
application, it becomes her burden to prove that she did so without illmotive.
Acting early is also important because the longer an applicant waits
to discover landmines in her application or background, the more
difficult it becomes to disarm them. For example, if the bar must tell an
applicant how she erred, the applicant may have shown the bar that she
did not take the matter seriously enough. Conversely, if an applicant is
already rectifying past misconduct, this will be looked upon favorably.
After all, how competent is a future attorney that has missed errors on
her own bar application or failed to address errors that should have been
uncovered? Any applicant with potential red flags for the character
examination would benefit from consulting an experienced bar
519. Simon, supra note 174, at 642-43.
520. Susan Poser, Symposium, Multijurisdictional Practice For A Multijurisdictional
Profession, 81 NEB. L. REV. 1379, 1381 (2003) (noting in the unauthorized practice of law arena,
“lawyers must acknowledge the fact that, as the MJP Commission put it, ‘keeping antiquated laws
on the books breeds public disrespect for the law,’ and that this is ‘especially so where the laws
relate to the conduct of lawyers, for whom there is a professional imperative to uphold the law.’”)
(citing A.B.A. Center for Professional Responsibility, Client Representation in the 21st Century:
Report of the Commission on Multijurisdictional Practice 12 (Aug. 12, 2002),
http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mjp/final_mjp_rpt_121702.pdf) (discussing how discrimination may
exist in the character process)). See Cunningham, supra note 28, at 1037.