Application of Overall, 175 A.3d 666

Background

Mark Andrew Overall applied for admission to the Maryland Bar after practicing in Alabama, where he received a private reprimand, entered a conditional guilty plea to multiple Rules of Professional Conduct violations, consented to revocation of probation, and was suspended for 91 days. Alabama denied his reinstatement twice (March 2014 and October 2015).
While under Alabama discipline, Overall was convicted for resisting arrest (bench conviction, then de novo jury conviction in April 2015) and was subject to multiple contempt citations and complaints alleging failures to appear, inadequate preparation, improper filings, and misconduct toward judges.
Overall’s Maryland Bar application (filed May 13, 2015) disclosed some matters but omitted or inadequately described other material items: he failed timely to disclose the April 2015 jury conviction, did not initially disclose Alabama reinstatement denial(s), and made delayed or incomplete supplemental disclosures despite requests from the Character Committee.
The Sixth Appellate Circuit Character Committee (after interview and a hearing) unanimously recommended denial based on lack of candor, the Alabama suspension/non-reinstatement, and Overall’s failure to accept responsibility; the State Board of Law Examiners unanimously recommended denial for similar reasons.
The Court of Appeals, giving deference to the Board’s findings but conducting an independent review, considered whether Overall had proven present moral character and fitness and whether his omissions and Alabama discipline precluded admission.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Overall demonstrated requisite moral character and fitness for Maryland admission	Overall argued he had rehabilitated, provided supplements and character letters, and disputed characterizations of his Alabama discipline	Board/Committee argued omissions, mischaracterizations, and disciplinary history show lack of candor and present unfitness	Denied — applicant failed to meet burden of proving good moral character and fitness
Whether Overall’s omissions/lack of candor warranted denial	Overall claimed omissions were inadvertent, due to memory, or clarified by supplements	Board/Committee maintained absolute candor is required and omissions (e.g., jury conviction, reinstatement denial) were material and inadequately explained	Denied — lack of candor fatal; full, prompt disclosure is mandatory
Relevance of Alabama suspension and denials of reinstatement	Overall characterized suspension as administrative or contested and relied on supporting letters	Board/Committee viewed suspension and repeated denials of reinstatement as substantive evidence of unfitness and conduct that would violate Maryland rules	Denied — Alabama discipline and non-reinstatement weigh against admission
Constitutional claims (right to work / due process / privileges and immunities)	Overall argued right to work and invoked human-rights and due-process principles to challenge denial	State argued licensing/character review is a legitimate regulatory exercise with rational basis and Maryland may refuse admission for lack of character; no discrimination alleged	Rejected — licensing standards and character review are constitutional; no basis shown for constitutional relief

Key Cases Cited

In re Application of Brown, 449 Md. 669 (court reviews character/fitness standard and defers to Board) (principle: applicant bears burden to prove moral character)
In re Application of Strzempek, 407 Md. 102 (failure to disclose criminal conviction justified denial) (principle: absolute candor and prompt supplementation required)
Application of Stern, 403 Md. 615 (financial nondisclosures warrant denial) (principle: failure to answer candidly supports denial)
In re Application of Cramer, 427 Md. 612 (misrepresentations on application reflect on moral character) (principle: truthfulness is central to fitness)
In re Application of Allan S., 282 Md. 683 (candor and remorse can support admission despite past misconduct) (principle: full disclosure and remorse may mitigate past misconduct)
In re Application of Hyland, 339 Md. 521 (consideration of present moral character post-misconduct) (principle: focus on rehabilitation)
In re License of Thompson, 363 Md. 469 (out-of-state discipline relevant to Maryland admission) (principle: out-of-state sanctions can justify denial/revocation)
Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232 (due process limits arbitrary denial; candor and rehabilitation important) (principle: state may set standards but must have rational basis and consider present character)
Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274 (practice of law protected by Privileges and Immunities but states may regulate admission) (principle: nondiscriminatory licensing permissible)
Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773 (states have strong interest in regulating lawyers) (principle: licensing necessary to protect public and justice system)