Tarra Simmons has an essay in the Yale Law Journal Forum

This Essay is rooted in the author’s experience as a formerly justice-involved individual who overcame numerous barriers, including addiction and incarceration, to become an attorney. The Essay takes aim at one barrier in particular: state bar character and fitness evaluations. The author, whose bar application was initially rejected despite her extraordinary accomplishments as a law student, notes that the bar admissions process needlessly deters countless other formerly justice-involved individuals from attempting to join the legal profession, and argues that state bar associations should use a conditional approval process that informs such individuals whether the bar intends to admit them before they begin law school. This reform would benefit society at large, since formerly justice-involved individuals have unique and important contributions to make to the legal system.

My colleague Shon Hopwood represented Ms. Simmons in her successful quest for admission in Washington State.

The WSBA Character and Fitness Board rejected my application to even take the bar exam for two primary reasons. First, the majority of the Board concluded that my six years of rehabilitative efforts were not enough; rather, my efforts were “tender,” “still fragile,” and “still in their infancy.” Second, the Board concluded that I possessed an attitude displaying “a sense of entitlement to privileges and recognition beyond the reach of others”  based on my advocacy for admission and the public recognition I had received because of some of my accomplishments.

I appealed to the Washington Supreme Court, where I was represented by my mentors John Strait and Shon Hopwood. It must have surprised both the court and the public that the brilliant attorney arguing on my behalf had himself been convicted of armed bank robberies just a few years prior. The court reversed the Board’s rejection. It embraced evidence-based practices for evaluating how long a person must show rehabilitation from substance use disorder and refrain from crime before they pose no substantial risk of recidivism. Although the court declined to adopt a bright-line rule for admission to practice law, it cited to research showing that five years of sobriety and exemplary conduct should be given great weight in determining whether a person has transformed her life.  The court refused to adopt our suggested presumption that five years of law-abiding conduct establish the character and fitness necessary to practice law, giving flexibility for people with less time of documented desistance or sobriety. In retrospect, I agree with the court and view this flexibility as important. 

Professors may wish to show the Simmons oral argument to their professional responsibility classes. (Mike Frisch)