Admission Denied
The Vermont Supreme Court upheld the conclusions of its Board of Bar Examiners Character and Fitness Committee and denied admission to an applicant who had resigned from the California Bar
Over the course of approximately five years in the 1990s, while practicing law under a license to the California Bar, applicant embezzled over $500,000 in total from various clients. When the Bar initially learned of applicant’s embezzlement, it suspended his license. Applicant continued to practice law without informing his clients that he was suspended, and continued to embezzle client funds. This resulted in a criminal prosecution, conviction, prison sentence, and resignation from the California Bar. In his testimony, applicant admitted to all of these facts. The Committee commended applicant for “acknowledging and accepting his responsibility for the very serious misconduct in his past that caused direct harm to his clients.” However, the Committee was troubled by applicant’s explanation for this behavior—that he did not need the money and does not know why he stole it other than he felt a sense of “entitlement” to his client’s funds and acted “narcissistic[ly].” The Committee did not find this explanation credible and it did not persuade them that similar behavior would not occur again. The Committee also noted that in response to Question 12 of the Character and Fitness Application, which asks whether the applicant has ever “been the subject of any charges, complaints or grievances (formal or informal) alleging that you engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, including any now pending?”, applicant answered “No,” which was incorrect and which directly contradicted his hearing testimony.
The NCBE report noted further criminal charges of false imprisonment and multiple charges for forgery of a driver’s license. Applicant did not disclose these charges on either his Vermont Bar or NCBE applications. Applicant did not explain why he failed to disclose the false imprisonment charge, and although he testified that he did not disclose the forgery charges because he knew nothing about them, the Committee did not find this explanation credible. The Committee found that these failures to disclose reflected a lack of transparency and casted doubt on his honesty and integrity.
The applicant has been crime-free for over 20 years
Contrary to applicant’s suggestion, it was appropriate for the Committee to consider applicant’s past behavior, even that which occurred decades ago. Our rules explicitly provide that an applicant’s past behavior is relevant to determining an applicant’s present eligibility. Indeed, this understanding is embodied in the very definition of “Good moral character and fitness.”
Disposition
We have reviewed and thoroughly considered the evidence both for and against applicant in our evaluation of the record, and we reach the same conclusion as the Committee: that applicant failed to meet his burden to demonstrate his good moral character and fitness, particularly, that he “does not likely pose a risk to clients, the legal system, or the administration of justice.” V.R.A.B. 16(b). Applicant’s serious and long-running crimes against his clients in the 1990s, his explanation for that behavior, and, most critically, the several instances of dishonesty or lack of candor related to his current application to the Vermont Bar leave us unconvinced that applicant possesses the good moral character necessary for a member of this state’s bar.
(Mike Frisch)