Facing the Klieg Lights: Understanding the "Good Moral Character"

CLEMENSFINAL.DOC
3/30/2007 12:51:01 PM
2007] THE “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” EXAMINATION 257
cannot be objectively measured, so when an applicant has such a past,
predicting results is difficult. 14
Although the character requirement is part of each state’s bar
admission process, no universal definition exists. 15 According to the
U.S. Supreme Court, “the character requirement is ‘unusually
ambiguous’ and has ‘shadowy rather than precise bounds.’” 16 The bar
recognizes this, given that “the Bar Examiner’s Handbook states: ‘No
definition of what constitutes grounds for denial of admission on the
basis of faulty moral character exists.’” 17
Some issues will raise red flags for any applicant. These issues
include financial irresponsibility, past criminal history, mental illness
and treatment, substance abuse, lack of academic integrity, and failure to
cooperate with bar examiners, among others. 18
C. Criticism of Character Examination
Some critics claim that “the lack of meaningful standards
addressing specific criteria to gauge fitness of character has rendered
‘the filtering process . . . inconsistent, idiosyncratic, and needlessly
intrusive.’” 19 Research suggests that few applicants answer all of the
bar’s invasive inquiries completely, yet rarely is admission denied. 20
Another perceived flaw is under-inclusiveness. Professor Stanley
(8) positive social contributions since the conduct;
(9) the applicant’s candor in the admissions process;
(10) the materiality of any omissions or misrepresentations.
Carr, supra at 385 (quoting Comprehensive Guide to Bar Admissions Requirements, 1994-1995
A.B.A. SEC. LEGAL EDUC. & ADMISSIONS & NAT’L CONF. OF BAR EXAMINERS, at vii-viii).
14. Ratcliff, supra note 5, at 488 (“Character screening, like science, deals with ascertaining
certain variables, placing these variables into a formula and obtaining a result. Unlike an absolute
that may be found in science, the concept of character has no universally accepted definition; thus, a
major problem arises. Ambiguous notions of good character coupled with vague tests for judging
an applicant’s character, have resulted in inconsistent results in bar admission cases.”).
15. Stepanian, supra note 13, at 69.
16. Peter A. Joy & Robert R. Kuehn, Conflict Of Interest And Competency Issues In Law
Clinic Practice, 9 CLINICAL L. REV. 493, 504 (2002) (quoting Konigsberg v. State Bar of Calif.,
353 U.S. 252, 263 (1957); Schware v. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs, 353 U.S. 232, 249 (1957)).
17. Joy & Kuehn, supra note 16, at 504 (quoting THE BAR EXAMINER’S HANDBOOK 122
(Stuart Duhl ed., 2d ed. 1980)[hereinafter HANDBOOK]).
18. Jayne W. Barnard, Renewable Bar Admission: A Template For Making
“Professionalism” Real, 25 J. LEGAL PROF. 1, 2 (2001).
19. Robin, supra note 4, at 570 (quoting Deborah L. Rhode, Moral Character As a
Professional Credential, 94 YALE L.J. 491, 494 (1985)).
20. Stanley S. Herr, Questioning The Questionnaires: Bar Admissions And Candidates With
Disabilities, 42 VILL. L. REV. 635, 642 n.36 (1997) (“[I]n 1993, 31% of first-year students surveyed
at University of Connecticut School of Law reported past treatment while only 47 of 1,072
applicants, constituting 4.4%, disclosed such treatment to bar examiners in that same year.”).