Conditional Admission In Louisiana

An applicant has been conditionally admitted to practice in Louisiana

Petitioner successfully passed the Louisiana Bar Examination. However, the Committee on Bar Admissions (“Committee”) advised petitioner that it was unable to certify him for admission to the bar on character and fitness grounds, citing his failure to update his law school application to disclose two criminal offenses with which he was charged while he was a law student.

On petitioner’s application to this court, we remanded this matter to the Committee on Bar Admissions Panel on Character and Fitness to conduct an investigation and appointed a commissioner to take character and fitness evidence. The commissioner held a character and fitness hearing pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XVII, § 9(D)(6). A representative of the law school testified at the hearing and explained that when petitioner submitted his application in 2011, there was no requirement to notify the law school of criminal charges that arose after enrollment.

Following the proceedings, the commissioner filed his report with this court, finding that petitioner should not be denied admission for failing to update his law application to disclose criminal charges that occurred in 2012 and 2013, after he was enrolled in law school, as the law school’s application form did not require such a disclosure. Nevertheless, the commissioner found that petitioner did not act consistently with the high standards of conduct expected of lawyers. Accordingly, the commissioner recommended that petitioner be conditionally admitted to the practice of law. Neither party objected to this recommendation.

The conditions are in place for a year and until further court order.

A second applicant also was conditionally admitted subject to monitoring by the Lawyers’ Assistance Program.

Justice Crichton dissented in part and would not impose the conditions

I concur with the result in the per curiam opinion, but only insofar as petitioner is granted admission. In my view, despite petitioner’s consent to the recovery agreement proposed by LAP, the appropriate result would be to grant petitioner admission without any conditions. Upon close examination of the record, including the unique circumstances presented, I believe that conditional admission is unduly harsh and the five-year probationary period, with its attendant burdensome testing requirements for the individual, is unwarranted. While we accord appropriate discretion to LAP recommendations, we are not necessarily bound to these recommendations, even if petitioner has indicated his or her consent. In all cases, the court should carefully scrutinize the severity of the punishment proposed in relation to the facts in the record before us. On these particular facts, I would grant petitioner’s admission without any conditions.

Even though the identity of the applicants is not disclosed, it would be helpful to both aspiring lawyers and the public if the court explained in greater detail its reasoning in these conditional admission cases. (Mike Frisch)