THE
ISSUE OF MORAL CHARACTER
In addition to surviving those difficult law school years and the hurdle
of the Bar exam, before one can be admitted to practice law in California, an
applicant has the burden of establishing that he or she is of “good moral
character.” The term “good
moral character” includes qualities of honesty, fairness, candor,
trustworthiness, observance of fiduciary responsibility, respect for and
obedience to the laws of the state and nation and respect for the rights of
others and the judicial process.
The moral character application is quite lengthy and detailed, and must
be submitted with the applicant’s fingerprints to the Committee of Bar
Examiners.
The Committee is supposed to notify the applicant within 180 days that he
or she has been found to be of good moral character, or that such a
determination cannot be made because (1) information requested from the
applicant has not been received, or (2) information requested from governmental
agencies has not been received; or (3) information requested from additional
sources has not been received; or (4) further inquiry and analysis is necessary.
In addition to filling out the Moral Character Application fully and
truthfully, an applicant has a duty to update and supplement a pending
application as situations arise or change (e.g., applicant must report an arrest
subsequent to the application but prior to action by the Committee), and to
respond to requests for further information from the Committee.
In rare cases, the Committee may initially determine that the applicant
has not met his or her burden of establishing good moral character.
In the situation where the Committee has a genuine question as to the
applicant’s good moral character after considering all the information before
it, it is more likely to invite the applicant to meet “informally” with a
Subcommittee on Moral Character.
Although appearance at such an “informal conference” is voluntary and
a negative inference may not be drawn from an applicant’s declining an
invitation, it is generally a good idea to attend such conferences.
However, do not let the label “informal conference” fool you. The proceedings are tape recorded, and the applicant is often
subjected to intense cross-examination by Subcommittee members.
Applicants who appear at such conferences are well-advised to be
represented by counsel.
If an adverse moral character determination is made by the Committee, the
applicant may within 60 days of service of such determination apply to the State
Bar Court for a hearing on the issue, at which hearing the applicant has the
burden of establishing his or her good moral character.
Such hearings are often contentious and lengthy, and costly in terms of
legal fees.
More often than not I am consulted by an applicant who is in the middle
of the process (where the applicant either has received a request from the
Committee for additional information, or has been invited to an “informal
conference”) or at the very end (Committee has determined the applicant has
not met his or her burden of establishing good moral character).
I believe, however, that is much more cost effective and beneficial for
an applicant to employ counsel early on if he or she has any question about his
or her ability to establish good moral character, or has any question about the
application process.
Areas of particular concern to the Committee include, but are not limited
to, criminal convictions, substance abuse, unsatisfied civil judgments or other
indications of financial irresponsibility, and instances involving dishonest
conduct (e.g., school imposed discipline for plagiarizing).
Experienced counsel is often able to assist in guiding the applicant
through the application process, dealing with possible problem areas, and
planning an effective long-term strategy should it appear that the issue of
moral character might be hotly contested.