Admission Denial Affirmed

The full Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a single justice’s denial of an application for bar admission

Moran graduated from an accredited law school in 2013 and first filed an application for admission to the Massachusetts bar in 2018. He did not pass the written examination in July 2018, but he reapplied and subsequently passed the examination in February 2019.

Character issues

Moran has a history of alcohol-related legal issues spanning the years 1997 to 2014, including seven arrests and three convictions for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (OUI) or a related offense. Some of these incidents occurred while Moran was attending law school and led to a suspension and expulsion from school, although he did ultimately obtain his law degree. Moran was also arrested three other times for nonalcohol related incidents. In its report of non-qualification, the board noted that Moran has made positive “purposeful life changes” and has had no arrests since 2014. The board also specifically stated that it “did not give weight to the facts or circumstances underlying . . . Moran’s alcohol-related arrests or convictions in its determination relative to [his application for admission to the bar].”

a. Commercial pilot certificate. The board did, however, have concerns with Moran’s OUI arrests and convictions as they were relevant to Moran’s commercial pilot certificate. In particular, the board was concerned with Moran’s failure to inform the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regarding the OUI charges and convictions. Moran was initially issued a pilot’s certificate in 1993. The certificate was inactive from the late 1990s until April 2021, when Moran obtained a new certificate. When the board first inquired of Moran whether he was required to disclose his arrests or convictions for OUI, and any related suspension of his driver’s license, to the FAA, Moran responded that he did not know what his obligations were, that he would find out, and that he would provide that information to the board.

Moran subsequently submitted a letter to the board indicating that inactive pilots are not required to disclose OUI arrests and convictions to the FAA. More specifically, Moran indicated that he had spoken with a particular administrative investigator at the FAA and that the investigator had told Moran that there was no such requirement. This was, as it turns out, untrue. Moran later suggested that he had misunderstood what he had been told by the FAA and acknowledged that his rendition of whom he spoke with at the FAA and what they had told him were inaccurate. Moran subsequently reported the required information to the FAA but then failed to cooperate with the FAA’s investigation by demanding that the FAA itself obtain the relevant records relating to his criminal history rather than providing them himself. Eventually, Moran accepted a 120-day suspension proposed by the FAA and was able to obtain a new pilot’s certificate in April 2021.

b. Tax filings. The board was also concerned with Moran’s conduct in relation to certain tax filings. When the board initially inquired whether Moran had filed income taxes for the years 2016, 2017, and 2018, both individually and on behalf of the company that Moran owned, he was unable to answer the question. During the course of the special counsel’s investigation, Moran gave conflicting answers regarding whether he had filed his taxes, and although he eventually provided draft copies of his returns for the indicated years, he stated that the returns for two of the years needed to be revised because they were missing certain income. He also indicated that he would update special counsel regarding those revisions, but never followed up with that information. At the formal hearing following the special counsel’s investigation, Moran testified as to some confusion on his part regarding the filing of individual and corporate taxes. Although he did eventually look into the matter and ensured that his taxes were properly filed, he did not do so until prompted by the special counsel’s investigation. Additionally, there was some indication that not all of the information included in his tax returns was accurate.

Conclusion

Overall, Moran has not established “by clear and convincing evidence his . . . current good character and fitness to be admitted to the practice of law.” Rule V.2.2 of the Rules of the Board of Bar Examiners. He has not, in short, demonstrated that he has the ability to conduct himself with respect for and in accordance with the law. As such, we are not “confident that allowing [Moran] to practice law would not be detrimental to the public interest.” Porter v. Board of Bar Examiners, 489 Mass. 1012, 1015 (2022), quoting Matter of an Application for Admission to the Bar of the Commonwealth, 444 Mass. at 411.

(Mike Frisch)