Charles A. Nichols v. Board of Bar Examiners
2017 WI 55
| Wis. | 2017Background
- Charles A. Nichols, a UW law school graduate (dec. 2015), was found to have committed academic misconduct in a third-year Law of Democracy paper that contained extensive unattributed copying from four law-review articles; he received an F in the course and completed an online academic-integrity module.
- Nichols disclosed the academic misconduct on his bar application but omitted several other items (underage drinking citations previously omitted from his law‑school app, a 2007 eviction listing without his involvement, a 2008 restraining order he obtained, and a 2009 absolute sobriety citation later dismissed); he amended the bar application after Board inquiries.
- The Board of Bar Examiners held a hearing, found Nichols not credible, concluded his plagiarism and nondisclosures showed deficiencies in honesty, diligence, and reliability, and declined to certify his character and fitness under SCR 40.06.
- Nichols sought this court’s review under SCR 40.08(7); the court reviewed the Board’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo, applying the BA 6.02/6.03 guidelines for evaluating character and fitness.
- The Supreme Court reversed the Board, concluding that Nichols’ misconduct—though serious—was sufficiently offset by positive evidence (employer references and the course professor’s support), and admitted him subject to conditions: two years of monitored practice with an OLR‑appointed practice monitor, initial inactive bar enrollment, cooperation with monitoring, and possible discipline for noncompliance.
Issues
| Issue | Nichols' Argument | Board's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board findings of dishonesty/credibility are clearly erroneous | Nichols: findings unsupported; misconduct was careless, not intentional; he was forthright | Board: testimony and omissions show minimization and lack of candor; credibility problems | Court: Board findings not clearly erroneous; credibility determinations have support |
| Whether Nichols met burden to establish present character and fitness under SCR 40.06 | Nichols: single instance of academic misconduct plus carelessness in omissions; positive character evidence and mitigation show rehabilitation | Board: plagiarism + nondisclosures show pattern of disregarding rules; employment not sufficient rehabilitation | Court: On de novo review, applicant met burden when balanced against mitigating evidence; admission granted with conditions |
| Appropriate remedy/remand when concerns exist but mitigation present | Nichols: asked reversal and admission | Board: suggested reapplication or deferral; doubted sufficiency of rehabilitation | Court: reversed Board and remanded with court‑imposed conditions (monitoring, inactive enrollment, OLR oversight) |
| Scope of confidentiality for sealed application materials on review | Nichols: (implicitly) some materials filed in appendix by applicant | Board/OLR: application files confidential per SCR 40.12 | Concurring opinion clarified sealed materials remain confidential except required disclosures to OLR/monitor; maintained under seal unless court orders otherwise |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Bar Admission of Rippl, 250 Wis. 2d 519, 639 N.W.2d 553 (2002) (appellate review standards for Board findings and court’s supervisory authority over bar admissions)
- In re Bar Admission of Vanderperren, 261 Wis. 2d 150, 661 N.W.2d 27 (2003) (deference to Board’s factual findings absent clear error; de novo legal review)
- In re Bar Admission of Jarrett, 368 Wis. 2d 567, 879 N.W.2d 116 (2016) (admission with conditions where academic misconduct and nondisclosures were offset by rehabilitation and supervision)
- In re Bar Admission of Rusch, 171 Wis. 2d 523, 492 N.W.2d 153 (1992) (standard for clear‑error review of Board findings)
- In re Bar Admission of Crowe, 141 Wis. 2d 230, 414 N.W.2d 41 (1987) (authority on court’s review role in bar admissions)
- In re Bar Admission of Anderson, 290 Wis. 2d 722, 715 N.W.2d 586 (2006) (consideration of character and fitness factors)
- In re Bar Admission of Gaylord, 155 Wis. 2d 816, 456 N.W.2d 590 (1990) (use of conditional admission/remand in appropriate cases)
- In re Bar Admission of Saganski, 226 Wis. 2d 678, 595 N.W.2d 631 (1999) (approach to remediation and reapplication considerations)