Lack Of Candor Dooms Bar Admission

The Georgia Supreme Court has denied admission to an applicant who had demonstrated lack of candor in his law school applications and elsewhere

the Special Master found that Huddleston had falsely answered questions on his application for admission to Barry University School of Law; that he falsely answered questions on his application for transfer admission to John Marshall Law School; and that he falsely answered questions and failed to fully disclose requested information on his original application for certification of fitness; all of which led the Special Master to conclude that “[Huddleston’s] failure to adequately and fully disclose his previous arrests, charges, and convictions evidences a pattern of lack of candor and honesty.” The Special Master recommended to the Board that it delay making any ruling on Huddleston’s application for six months in order to give Huddleston an opportunity to provide any evidence of “positive action showing rehabilitation.” However, while the Board accepted the Special Master’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, it did not delay its ruling on Huddleston’s application and voted to issue an Order of Denial to Huddleston, which prevented him from sitting to take the Bar Exam. Huddleston appeals from the Board’s decision, and, for the reasons that follow, we affirm.

The court

Here, evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that Huddleston has not carried his burden of establishing that he has the requisite character and moral fitness to practice law. Indeed, in both of his initial law school applications and in his original application for certification of fitness, Huddleston consistently chose to conceal, rather than disclose, his relevant criminal background and academic history. He repeatedly gave false answers to direct questions about his criminal and academic background, and, even when directly confronted about his lack of candor on numerous occasions, he still chose to omit relevant portions of his record that should have been revealed from the beginning. Rather than showing that Huddleston has the requisite character and moral fitness to practice law, the record reveals that Huddleston

has an inclination for misleading and evasive behavior regarding inquiries into his criminal past and his [academic background] which, at best, shows a complete lack of diligence and judgment, which goes to his fitness, and, at worst, a lack of candor, which goes to his character. His . . . lack of complete candor during the law school application process and the bar application process evidence a lack of judgment and a failure of integrity, character, professionalism, and the requisite moral fitness required of prospective members of the Bar.

In re Payne, 289 Ga. 746, 749 (1) (715 SE2d 139) (2011).

(Mike Frisch)