Duty Of Candor
The Vermont Supreme Court denied the application for bar admission of an applicant with a history of criminal and financial responsibility issues. Of particular significance to the court were issues relating to the adequacy of the applicant disclosures concerning these problems in law school applications and in the bar’s character and fitness process. The applicant had been denied admission in New York.
The applicant’s testimony on the issue of the law school applications (the applicant had a j.d. and a master’s degree)was summarized:
Regarding his lack of candor on his law school applications, hemaintained that he never had any intent to be deceitful and explained that oncehe became aware that he had a duty to disclose items, he did soimmediately. Applicant explained that he thought his juvenile record wassealed and not subject to disclosure on his J.D. application. Further, heasserted that he disclosed his convictions after he learned that he wasrequired to provide the law school with that information. Uponquestioning, applicant was unclear about whether he had forgotten about hisjuvenile convictions or simply thought that he was not required to disclosethem. He also did not provide an explanation for why he made a latedisclosure of one juvenile infraction, but not of the others. Applicantadmitted that he realized he was required to disclose a conditional dischargeand therefore disclosed his harassment conviction, but maintained that thebad-check conviction was not required to be disclosed because he rememberedthat the matter was dismissed, even though the paperwork revealedotherwise.
Concerning his LL.M. application, applicant testified that an employeeat American advised him that he was not required to disclose his juvenileconvictions. He also opined that he was not required to reveal hisadministrative probation at Cooley because the question asked only aboutacademic and conduct probation. Applicant sought to admit a recent letterfrom a dean at the law school, indicating that the school would not haverequired disclosure of administrative probation or juvenile convictions, butthe Commissioner excluded the letter as hearsay.
The court emphasized the duty to full candor:
Overall, while some of applicant’s answers may have, in some quibblingsense, been correct, they were certainly not complete, nor were they in keepingwith his affirmation at the end of the application that he had answered allquestions “fully and frankly.” What applicant fails to comprehend is thatin answering questions about his past, the best response is the one that mostfully answers the question. Evasive or incomplete answers, althougharguably not incorrect, do not fulfill an applicant’s responsibility to betruthful and honest. Nor do such answers give us confidence in theapplicant’s ability to be honest and trustworthy in the practice of law. See V.R.A.B. § 11(b)(1) (stating that process of screening applicants forgood moral character is to exclude individuals who have demonstrated“dishonesty or lack of trustworthiness in carrying out responsibilities”). Each of these instances of nondisclosure individually might not compel usto conclude that applicant lacks good moral character. In the aggregate,however, applicant’s repeated nondisclosure of his past, and his continuinginsistence that he has acted properly, do not give us confidence that applicantunderstands the importance of honesty or the gravity of his behavior.
Whatever a court’s reaction to pre- bar application issues in terms of the evaluation of the applicant’s character, a lack of candor and acceptance of responsibility in the admission process is invariably fatal to the application. I am a bit troubled by the rejection of evidence from a law school regarding its interpretation of disclosure obligations on its admission application. (Mike Frisch)