In re A.S., 173 A.3d 1280

A.S., a 2015 Roger Williams Law graduate and Massachusetts bar member, applied for admission to the Rhode Island Bar in April 2015.
The Committee on Character and Fitness requested documents and explanations regarding a 2009 airport arrest (possession of knives) and Family Court matters concerning child support/health-insurance substitution; A.S. delayed and initially resisted producing full records.
The committee found A.S. was reticent, displayed intentional lack of candor, and showed hostility to the character-and-fitness process; five-to-two vote recommended denial (unanimous that burden not met).
A.S. argued before this Court that the committee’s factual findings were erroneous, that he met the clear-and-convincing standard, and that the committee abused its discretion by refusing to reconsider; he also highlighted strong academic credentials and letters of support.
The Supreme Court reviewed under the abuse-of-discretion/clearly-wrong standard, accepted the committee’s findings, denied admission, but allowed A.S. to reapply no sooner than two years after oral argument (June 7, 2017) with conditions described.

Issue	Applicant's Argument	Committee/Court's Argument	Held
Whether A.S. proved good moral character and fitness by clear and convincing evidence	A.S. pointed to law-school honors, leadership, recommendations, and argued committee findings were incorrect	Committee found lack of candor, delayed production of documents, hostility to process; such behavior undermines character and fitness	Denied — A.S. failed to meet clear-and-convincing burden
Whether refusal/delay to produce Family Court and arrest records justified adverse inference	A.S. claimed privacy concerns and counsel advice justified withholding; later produced some materials	Committee/Court found no legal basis to withhold, and failure to timely produce showed disrespect and lack of candor	Justified — withholding/delay supported committee’s adverse findings
Whether the committee abused discretion by refusing to reopen/reconsider after receiving letters of support	A.S. argued new supportive letters warranted reconsideration	Court noted no procedural rule mandating reconsideration and found no new facts undermining committee’s findings	No abuse of discretion — refusal affirmed
Whether conditional admission was an appropriate remedy	A.S. and two committee members suggested conditional supervised admission	Majority committee and Court emphasized failure to prove character/fitness now despite potential for remediation	Court declined conditional admission but permitted future reapplication after two years

In re Webb, 58 A.3d 150 (R.I. 2013) (standard for reviewing Committee on Character and Fitness recommendations)
In re Roots, 762 A.2d 1161 (R.I. 2000) (educational achievement insufficient; candor and full disclosure central to character evaluation)
In re Vose, 93 A.3d 33 (R.I. 2014) (demeanor, hostility, and manner of disclosure relevant to moral fitness)
In re Testa, 489 A.2d 331 (R.I. 1985) (integrity and veracity as prerequisites for admission)