Facing the Klieg Lights: Understanding the "Good Moral Character"
Facing the Klieg Lights: Understanding the "Good Moral Character"
Facing the Klieg Lights: Understanding the "Good Moral Character"
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
CLEMENSFINAL.DOC<br />
3/30/2007 12:51:01 PM<br />
2007] THE “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” EXAMINATION 299<br />
F. Failure to Cooperate and Lack of Candor<br />
The importance of honesty and candor in a bar application cannot<br />
be overstated. Lack of candor will result in difficulty, 438 if not denial. 439<br />
The accuracy of an application can determine <strong>the</strong> applicant’s success or<br />
failure. An applicant must be candid, 440 humble, and without excuses or<br />
conspiracy <strong>the</strong>ories 441 to <strong>the</strong> bar. Similarly, candor is required for<br />
testimony to <strong>the</strong> bar. 442<br />
Each answer to a bar application question should be precise. 443 No<br />
answer should be even arguably false, misleading, or lacking in<br />
candor. 444 Any such answer should be amended as soon as possible.<br />
Even an application filled out recklessly, without intent to deceive, can<br />
result in denial. 445 An applicant who has already submitted <strong>the</strong><br />
application and finds herself facing extended review should hire an<br />
attorney to review <strong>the</strong> bar application, law school application, and all<br />
supporting documents 446 to discover errors and correct <strong>the</strong>m as soon as<br />
practicable. Providing an honest explanation for errors or omissions is<br />
best. Not only should an applicant show respect and deference to <strong>the</strong><br />
bar, she should be respectful to witnesses appearing before <strong>the</strong> bar. 447<br />
The bar seeks strict adherence to <strong>the</strong> disclosure requirements so it<br />
can fully examine <strong>the</strong> total applicant. 448 Yet, failure to disclose a very<br />
minor incident can be found de minimis and admission allowed. 449<br />
Similarly, it may be acceptable if only innocuous incidents were<br />
omitted, 450 but such lenience should not be relied upon. The best<br />
practice is to disclose everything and not worry about potential<br />
immateriality.<br />
While <strong>the</strong>re is no litmus test for character, “no moral character<br />
qualification for bar membership is more important than truthfulness and<br />
438. Blum, supra note 252, at §16(a) (citing In re Schaeffer, 541 P.2d 1400 (Or. 1975)).<br />
439. Id. at §13(b), 16(a), 16(b).<br />
440. Id. at § 5 (citing Shochet v. Ark. Bd. of Law Exam’rs, 979 S.W.2d 888 (Ark. 1998)).<br />
441. Blum, supra note 241, at § 19 (citing In re Dickens, 832 N.E.2d 725 (Ohio 2005)).<br />
442. Blum, supra note 252, at § 17.<br />
443. Id. at §16(a) (citing Tex. State Bd. of Law Exam’rs v. Malloy, 793 S.W.2d 753 (Tex. Ct.<br />
App. 1990)).<br />
444. Id. at § 5.<br />
445. Id. (citing Appeal of Lane, 544 N.W.2d 367 (Neb. 1996)).<br />
446. See id. at § 18.<br />
447. Id. at § 19.<br />
448. Id. (citing In re Cvammen, 806 N.E.2d 498, 502 (Ohio 2004)).<br />
449. Id. at §16(a) (citing Hallinan v. Comm. of Bar Exam’rs of State Bar, 421 P.2d 76 (Cal.<br />
1966)); see also id. (citing In re Gimbel, 533 P.2d 810 (Or. 1975)).<br />
450. Id. (citing Lopez v. Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs, 231 So.2d 819 (Fla. 1969)).