183 A.3d 574
Vt.2018Background
- Robert Grundstein, J.D., passed the Vermont bar exam (Feb. 2016). His character-and-fitness review by the Vermont Committee resulted in denial of certification (Jan. 30, 2017) based on concerns about past convictions, disbarment, candor, and conduct.
- Disclosed criminal history: 2002 Ohio conviction for improper storage of a firearm (probation) and a 2008 Ohio conviction for altering a court document; dockets show probation violations, contempt findings, and extended supervision.
- In Washington, Grundstein was investigated and ultimately disbarred (2012); the WSBA discipline notice alleged falsifying documents, filing frivolous pleadings, disregarding court orders, and repeatedly filing meritless motions and appeals.
- Grundstein provided vague, shifting explanations, failed to produce requested records (e.g., full WSBA transcript, disciplinary materials), and omitted numerous civil cases from his bar application; he characterized adverse proceedings as corruption or retaliation.
- The Committee found lack of candor and concluded Grundstein was presently unfit to practice; the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, focusing on character concerns (dishonesty, lack of trustworthiness) rather than a medical/health-based "fitness" finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Grundstein) | Defendant's Argument (State/Committee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permitting Grundstein to sit for the bar estops later character review | Allowing him to take the exam implies pre-exam certification; estoppel/laches bar further inquiry | No estoppel; public interest requires full character inquiry even after exam | Denied estoppel; Committee may investigate after exam |
| Whether denial can be based on "fitness" absent evidence of health condition | Grundstein: Committee erred to find unfit without health evidence; passing exam shows competence | Committee relied on conduct, but record lacks health-based evidence for "fitness" denial | Court: "fitness" (health-based) denial improper; focus remains on "character" |
| Whether Ohio convictions and Washington disbarment require denial or were inadequately supported | Grundstein: Conviction and disbarment were products of corruption/retaliation; he lacked records but denied wrongdoing | Committee/State: Public records and WSBA notice show serious misconduct; Grundstein failed to supply corroborating records or candid explanations | Held for State: applicant failed to meet burden to dispel concerns; lack of candor and omissions fatal to showing good character |
| Whether applicant's conduct during proceedings bears on admission | Grundstein: Passing bar demonstrates competence; he was not warned his conduct would be scrutinized this way | Committee: Evasive answers, failure to produce records, omissions, and inability to focus indicate untrustworthiness for practice | Court: Conduct and lack of candor are relevant to character; they reinforce denial |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Monaghan, 126 Vt. 53, 222 A.2d 665 (Vt. 1966) (character certification described as condition precedent to taking bar exam)
- In re Lyon, 178 Vt. 232, 882 A.2d 1143 (Vt. 2005) (elements for equitable estoppel and limits on estopping government)
- In re Letourneau, 168 Vt. 539, 726 A.2d 31 (Vt. 1998) (estoppel against government requires balancing public interest)
- In re Bitter, 185 Vt. 151, 969 A.2d 71 (Vt. 2008) (lack of candor in bar applications can support denial of admission)
- Matter of Ronwin, 680 P.2d 107 (Ariz. 1983) (high court may take judicial notice of adjudicative facts on bar-admission review)