*1 Bаnk. Dec. 22295. In 1966.] F. No. [S. OF Petitioner, v. COMMITTEE AN, H ALLIN
TERENCE BAR OF CALI EXAMINERS, THE STATE BAR Respondent. FORNIA, *2 Benjamin Dreyfus Dreyfus
Garry, & McTernan and Petitioner. Krause, Wirin, A. Fred
Marshal W. L. Okrand and Law- *3 Sperber as Amici behalf of rence R. Curiae Petitioner. Selvin, McCloskey F. Loeb &Loeb and Kenneth Herman D. Respondent. PETERS, J.Petitioner, Hallinan, Terence seeks review of refusing the the Committee of Bar Examiners action of certify practice him admission to this court for law in Cal (Bus. Code, 6066.) ifornia. &Prof. § aged graduated Petitioner, 29, Hastings College from now passed Law and in March 1965 took and the bar of examina- given general applicants. tion He was not certified for admis- pending investigation hearing and however, sion, possession into “good requisite character” of moral for certi- the for admission.1 fication qualify section 6060 in order to and Professions Code 1Under Business things, must, among good applicant "Be of
for moral character.” Rules moral character other certification (Bus. Code, 6060, (e).) § & the Prof. subd. Under proving good Regulating the of Admission to Practice Law burden (Rule X, 101; upon applicant. § In re the see also is 354]; Bar, Garland, 661, Spears 219 662 P.2d v. State 211 Cal. Cal. [28 183, 697, 923].) appli rule the 188 P. 72 A.L.R. Pursuant this [294 lengthy hearings by After a three-man subcommittee and a hearings review of the entire those and record of of additional produced full evidence the Bar before Committee of Exam- possess good the iners latter found that did not the necessary moral character for admission. April
Respondent, by 21, 1966, letter of advised hereby this certify appli- “that Committee the does refuse Supreme the cant to Court of California for admission and a practice applicant satisfy law said not license to because does requirement 6060(c) the of of California Section Business ’ good, and Professions Code that he ‘be of moral character upon grounds . set five . . .” The letter forth con 2 clusion based. findings of the Board of of Governors State given great respondent, Bar of a committee such as while or (In Alkow, binding upon re 64 weight, are not this court. 838, Cal.Rptr. 912, 800]; 840 415 P.2d Grove v. Cal.2d [51 Cal.Rptr. 405 Bar, 312, 513, 315 P.2d State 63 Cal.2d [46 Cal.Rptr. 17, 1, 19 ; Bar, v. State 62 Cal.2d Linnick [41 553] 495, Bar, 58 Cal.2d 497 33]; 396 P.2d Bodisco v. State [24 Bar, 24 Cal.Rptr. 835, ; P.2d Werner v. State Cal.2d 374 803] showing 892].) 611, 623 P.2d The burden [150 findings or that supported the evidence its are peti- is or or unlawful decision action erroneous Clark, (In p. In re Alkow, supra, 840; 2d at re Cal. tioner. good enough moral character furnish evidence must initially cant then the committee has the opportunity facie and establish prima ease, (Konigsberg showing character. v. with evidence bad to rebut 997].) L.Ed.2d Bar S.Ct. State U.S. California, "(1) grounds he now and has demon five are as follows: has 2These continuing willingness and ten many years, over a period strated justification, against and employ persons without reasonable dency, and threat force thereof; of others unreasonable physical property (2) shown dis- continuously years and over a recently period he has disregard rights, safety property, physical and willful respect of (3) and sometimes criminal use of force, in his others; improper knowing and in dis- forceful resistance Ms arrest, threat of force, he has for the law of a shown Court, disrespect the order obedience acknowledged right judicial of his which exceeds bounds officers, and to mass advertise, to advocate, participate to hold espouse, any social, philo- to achieve the acceptance political demonstrations (4) non-violent manner; views or beliefs a peaceful sopMcal and truthfulness; that he candor as a whole establishes lacks record tending good (5) that he has in the record to show the evidence *4 high outweighed is not entitled to by the evidence that he is character regard he does of the and that those possess and confidence public to admission practice and moral fitness requisite character qualities out noted, later, It should be as pointed in California.” law findings beliefs solely had based its subcommittee in with civil disobedience. activities connection
451 Cal.Rptr. 681, 993]; 407 P.2d Schull 612 610, 63 Cal.2d [47 Cal.Rptr. 590, 834, 599 381 Bar, 59 Cal.2d man State v. [30 Bar, 639, Cal.Rptr. 642 Rock 57 658]; P.2d v. State Cal.2d [21 Bar, 96 Hatch v. State 55 308, 818]; A.L.R.2d 572, 371 P.2d Cal.Rptr. 127, 808, 1064]; 128 357 P.2d Sullivan v. Cal.2d [9 Bar, 491, 138]; 50 501 P.2d Webb State State Cal.2d v. [326 866, P.2d458].) 868 Bar, 47 Cal.2d [306 disciplinary proceedings weighs In this court examines and (Schullman passes upon sufficiency. its evidence and v. supra, 590, 599; Bar, 59 Bodisco v. Bar, State Cal.2d State 495, 497; Bar, 57 219, 58 Black v. State Cal.2d supra, Cal.2d Cal.Rptr. P.2d 518, 118]; Bar, 222 368 Best State 57 v. [18 Cal.Rptr. 589, ; 371 P.2d Rock 633, Cal.2d 635 v. [21 325] Bar, supra, 639, 642; Bar, 57 v. State Cal.2d Sturr State 52 897].) Any 127 P.2d 125, Cal.2d reasonable doubts en [338 making in the such an countered examination should be (Black in Bar, supra, resolved favor of accused. v. State 57 219, 222; Bar, Cal.2d Brawner 48 814, v. State Cal.2d 818 [313 Bar, Browne State 45 ; 165, P.2d v. Cal.2d 168, 169 1] [287 Bar, P.2d ; 816, Hildebrand v. State 18 Cal.2d 834 745] [117 Zitny P.2d ; Bar, 787, also State 64 see v. Cal.2d 790 860] [51 Cal.Rptr. 825, 415 P.2d and In re Bar Association San Francisco, 7].) 621, 185 Cal. 623-624 P. These rules are [198 equally applicable proceedings. to admission proceed are some distinctions between admission There disciplinary proceedings, being the essential one ings and upon applicant is to show burden that he the former morally whereas the latter the burden is fit, is attorney morally prove that unfit. is Bar to There State proposition authority that the substantive stand early for the scope investigation permissible disciplinary ards and distinguishable respects proceedings are some from those proceeding type pre apply to an аdmission here held, example, inquiry It been for into sented. has process may scope be admission broader fitness Bar, (Spears proceeding. State in a disbarment v. than that Wells, 467, 188; re Cal. 474-475 supra, Cal. Stepsay, In re Cal.2d P.2d ; see also P. [98 657] subsequently ease, in Wells re 489].) was stated proceeding admission, Spears, that in a “The affirmed in . . . may any evidence which tends to show receive court [the general honesty, integrity, applicant’s] character upon proofs that may refuse admission morality, and no doubt *5 452 declared to be guilt any the acts of of might establish not ” 475.)3 (174 p. Cal. at disbarment. causes for approv cases as other California Spears, as well and Wells cited to demon bar, been the have ing admission to denial of traditionally de has been “good moral character” strate proven conduct an absence of “in terms of in state fined as manifesta historically considered have been acts which or ” 4 Bar, 353 (Konigsberg v. State turpitude.’ ‘moral
tions of In re see also 722]; 77 810, S.Ct. 263 L.Ed.2d 252, U.S. [1 490].) commission 489, Since 671 A.2d Meyerson, 190 Md. [59 statutory turpitude” is a constituting “moral an act of 6106) and is Code, & (Bus. Prof. ground § disbarment for disciplinary subject inquiry in frequent perhaps the most scope the insofar as readily that, seen may be proceedings, admission distinction between concerned, inquiry is apparent than real.5 today is more disciplinary proceedings necessary requirements procedural sustain substantive 3Strieter frequently proceeding disciplinary rational are in a decision an adverse ized on the taining right attorney property theory in main a has vested that an applicant already established, for admis practice whereas an a (See Note, 873.) merely privilege. 65 Yale L.J. a to be accorded sion seeks that, highest Thus, ‘‘ example, stated in 1906 in Connecticut court for what, meaning attorney deprive him of within is to To disbar may fairly regarded property. government, be our constitutions privilege is of admission to the bar asks the But one who [Citation.] got.” right property seeking simply which he has not to obtain 780], 777, see, Petition, (In 46 A. But [63 79 Conn. re O’Brien’s 733.) Reich, Property, generally, 73 Yale L.J. The New individual, peti- like to maintain that an somewhat difficult seems time, energy expense tioner, obtain- who has invested considerable requisite legal ing demonstrated the intellec- and who has education thereby acquire proficiencies qualities at least and technical does tual right profession similar to the to be admitted the right of a semblance already any event, attorney practice. opinions In admitted of an Supreme Court and of our court which characterize States of the United a claim right to the bar as a claim of a entitled to the for admission (Willner process procedural Character, protections v. Committee on due 224, ; 96, Summers, In re 83 S.Ct. 325 1175] 102 L.Ed2d [10 373 U.S. 1795, 1307]; 561, 65 Woodard 568 L.Ed S.Ct. see also v. State [89 U.S. Bar, 407]) 755, impossible P.2d make it for [108 16 Cal.2d 757 us to privilege. profession regard mere to the as a admission " 4" turn, broadly ‘every turpitude,” has been defined as Moral contrary justice, honesty, modesty, good (In thing or done morals’ re 602, McAllister, 932]; Hatch, 14 Cal.2d 603 P.2d re [95 10 Cal.2d ‘ 885]) baseness, 147, and as act of [a]n 150 P.2d vileness or [73 de private pravity in the and social duties which a man owes to his fellow society contrary general, accepted customary or to men rule duty (In right Boyd, 69, man man’ re 48 between Cal.2d 70 625]; 93, Craig, 442]).” (In In re 12 97 P.2d Cal.2d P.2d [82 re [307 838, 840-841.) Alkow, supra, pp. 64 Cal.2d 5Moreover, 232, Examiners, in Schware v. Board Bar 353 U.S. L.Ed.2d S.Ct. A.L.R.2d United States appears turpitude” Supreme to treat Court "moral as the relevant cri reviewing admission, though terion a decision refuse even the New Pundamentally, question involved both situations is applicant for attorney the same—is sought admission or the disciplined proper person a fit and per be to be practice law, usually upon mitted to and that turns whether likely he has committed is continue to commit acts of turpitude. argument attorney At the time of oral respondent frankly conceded that tеst for admission and discipline agree and should be same. We with this Therefore, considering concession. the kinds of acts justify excluding would candidate for admission we may acts which look to have been relied to sustain deci suspend previously sions to disbar or individuals admitted to *6 practice. proving In possesses order to sustain the burden of that he good petitioner character, moral furnished the Committee of adequate Bar Examiners of letters recommendation from Bar, members of the State and introduced hearing before the testimony attorneys subcommittee the of other who knew him. telegram Judge For a example, from Baida, Hector P. who presided petitioner a trial over which defended himself against charges stemming criminal during from his arrest a rights demonstration, civil was introduced into evidence. telegram Judge petitioner his Baida stated “represented that throughout proceedings court, himself applying of the required standards conduct a of of member of bar. I can think part subject of no of his courtroom demeanor that would be Whisman, criticism.” Frederick J. the assistant district at- torney prosecuted case, substantially who testified to Judge telegram. same effect as Baida’s Madden, professor Hastings of law at J. Warren a a Claims, judge retired of the Unitеd States Court of sent recommending petitioner a letter Bar Committee of petitioner Examiners. He stated the letter that was in the graduating top percent class, that, his while his contacts extensive,” petitioner gained “impres- “were not he with quiet, intelligent student”; a that he was serious sion that any person passed examination, has bar he, like who years large energy “has made a investment of his his worthy ambition,” if pursuit and that admitted one of a petitioner’s principal “representation would be activities statute, showing good statute, required our own a oí Mexico like Bar, part applicant. in Moura on the And v. State character "good 18 as P.2d this court used moral character" Cal.2d in a ease. standard disbarment persons unpopular,” whose beliefs are unorthodox or type say, Madden case, Professor went on to there adequate willing has never been an lawyers. number able and Joseph Grodin, practicing taught R. attorney, a course in petitioner Hastings law at in which labor enrolled. He during that that course he testified found to be capable legal “intelligent, alert, dealing objectively with Nothing behavior, in his in Mr. problems.” classroom Gre- opinion, anything negatively din’s indicated which reflected qualification upon petitioner’s for the The witness testi- bar. ‘‘ opinion very his further that fied to would make ’’ lawyer. good Assemblyman Brown, attorney Willie an and with also State rights movement, had worked the civil testi- whom nothing petitioner’s that there was conduct in fied connec- disqualify that with the movement would him tion from Burton, assembly- to the bar. John A. a state admission also attorney, that he had man and testified worked political peti- petitioner in activities; various observed during peaceful; those activities was conduct tioner’s nothing disqualify petitioner knew of that would from to the bar. admission prima established facie case on This evidence by respondent. This is admitted behalf.6 findings respondent disclose that conclusion propensity a fixed and dominant petitioner “has purposes violation of the law whenever suits lawlessness predicated relating particular moment” was on evidence *7 inquiry by subjects hearing committee: distinct to two first, petitioner’s attempts justify in participation and to pur- committed for the acts of “civil disobedience” certain pose rights minority vindicating groups, the civil Negroes. participation in such acts Petitioner’s particularly in admitted and inten- has resulted various disobedience civil law for he of the criminal some of which has violations tional inquiry and The second area of at prosecuted convicted. been petitioner’s alleged hearings habitual and concerned personal differences. continuing to settle We resort to fisticuffs consequences legal their matters and these two discuss separately. 71, 76, quoting Stepsay, supra, V. State Cal.2d Warbasse In re 6See heavy weight respect with to the Bar, P.2d 219 Gal. 571 [28 attorneys. judges given from fitness and as to moral testimonials in connection with activities First, as to connection, in this so far as His first arrest civil disobedience. England. he shows, while was occurred the record peace demonstration participated in a At that time peo involving hundred thousand “about a allegedly London ple. ’’ petitioner joined a Immediately demonstration after the Bussell, a British persons by Bertrand led group 300 or protest attempted a letter of to the to deliver philosopher, who embassy Embassy. When the authorities American Lord Bussell’s accept letter, the members of refused group Square a sidewalk on Grosvenor masse on down en sat including petitioner, were embassy. persons, All such near charged “blocking a formally arrested. Petitioner pound plea footpath” fined on his one of nolo contendere. returning States, petitioner’s growing After United rights apply in the civil movement caused him interest for membership in the Student Coordinating Non-Violent organization (SNCC), carry an formed to Committee out civil organization in the As a rights activities south. member assisting spent register summer of 1963 in efforts he Negroes Mississippi desegregate public vote facili- period, During this in that state. because of these activi- ties ties, Mississippi, petitioner was twice arrested local authorities in loitering, subsequently littering first for public Neither arrest resulted a conviction areas. or even a jail occasions was released from trial. both after On arrest, by Attorney intervention, after the first General of States, and, second, by after the the National the United Churches. Council of Mississippi returned to San Francisco from When Congress Equality a member of the of Bacial he became the National Association for the (COBE), Advancement of People Ad (NAACP), Hoc Committee End Colored Discrimination, organization afSliated with the Bacial Movement, helped organize Freedom the W.E.B. United composed young Club, DuBois Socialists. As a expanded participation groups he these member of rights Negroes by civil direct calculated to obtain activities “sitting-in” picketing at various in the form of action in San Francisco believed to follow establishments business practices. discriminatory hiring Petitioner was business police by Francisco six San between arrested on occasions April 14, 1963, 11, 1964, for demonstrations at September Bestaurant, agency, at Mel’s Drive-In at the private rental *8 agency at an on Palace Hotel and automobile located Sheraton “auto row.” Four of these six arrests were San Francisco’s participation picketing and “sit-ins” made for separate at the Sheraton Palace and on “auto on occasions variously charged with violations of Petitioner was row.” (remaining (unlawful assembly), 409 Penal present sections Code (disturbing place assembly), 415 the of unlawful at (trespass the peace), 602, (j), land for subdivision (unlawful obstructing business), 602.5 purpose a lawful (willful entry), 166, disobedience court subdivision his order). charges brought against role The agency, Mel’s Drive-In and at the rental at the demonstrations dismissed. The picketing Sheraton Palace were stemming the “sit-in” at the Palace charges from Sheraton attorney two of the district after dismissed on motion were mistrials. “auto row” he petitioner’s two arrests on As a result of separate charges. on He and twice convicted twice tried
was violating, on four counts of at the first trial was convicted 602, 407, 409, 415 and sections respectively, Penal Code and, trial, three counts of (j), at the second subdivision 602.5, respectively. 407, 409 and sections viоlating Penal Code hearing appeal the committee an before the time of the At pending. was judgment of conviction the latter from “sit-ins” the result of “auto row” were so-called The automobile dealers charges the NAACP certain negotiate claimed about their and refused to adhered practices. demonstration, hiring At the first on discriminatory including petitioner, demonstrators, 1964, 14, March agency, sat premises the Cadillac down entered sang charge police and the The arrived officer clapped. directing requesting and to the demonstrators order read orderly building in an manner. Some to leave them demonstrators, complied petitioner, the order. but not limp and building went were in the Those who remained deposited patrol wagon. in a police and by the out carried passive. by these demonstrators offered only resistance April agency at Cadillac occurred “sit-in” The second period produce “cooling-off” failed after dealers. The Cadillac NAACP between settlement substantially the same as this demonstration facts of preceding one. deny participation these acts of did not justified by certain disobedience, his conduct civil inter- connection, was In this political considerations. subcommittee, length by rogаted great members often *9 repeated objections ques- the counsel that of over philosophical speculative and answers that for tions called to the determination whether unrelated were ’’ ‘‘ possessed good moral character. questions form, varied in was Although asked whether, proposition, an abstract numerous occasions as justified deliberately in an individual violat- ever considered comply in to others to ing one law order force with another principle.7 overriding On of these constitutional one law or “Well, example, petitioner asked, occasions, for (and overriding understand that regard consideration I to overriding consideration) is an of civil you feel that Constitution, your position it is rights and the United States necessary is proper a law if this you feel it to violate that rights ? civil other ends To enforce other gain to these order ’’ responded follows: people. Petitioner where, you have are instances when tried “I feel there words, ... In I wouldn’t think it all the other resorts. other just go right us down be for to to Sheraton-Palace would (you say ‘we here talk know) and sit and are to about down negotiate, tried hiring Negro employees’; but when we have to picket tried have tried to and have all other when we things us, then, in they talk I think those and won’t even to justified in circumstances, people going in and that the are (and they really theoretically) sitting-in. think that are not I breaking I the law. That is not violation of the But law. and think, they if should be instructed even nonetheless have [sic], willing jail it ... if it was me I would be go to spend mean, guess eventually I will have to some do it. I I did there at the Sheraton-Palace and the for what we time I feel that because it made on; and so so “Auto Row” rights problem city, the civil in this progress in terms of much price if for it. Even it isn’t willing pay the I’m ’’ reversed. securing methods agreed that the traditional petition- by instituting legal proceedings changes or in the law preferable attempting so Legislature are do ing the civil disobedience.He also through the form of direct action part “Unfortunately progress however, of the stated, Assemblymen questions Willie Brown and were also asked of 7Similar hearing in behalf of before the committee John Burton who testified “you whether, opinion, feel that petitioner. in their Both were asked anyone proper in order to force someone to violate one law is ’’ comply with another ? moving legislature things proved to do has to be neces- sity people committing for some acts of civil disobedience sitting-in picketing singing doing you and and whatever activity is, . . . that without the kind dirеct do. feelings you showing on, get legislature won’t so passing passing you get legislature the laws. But unless really objec- changing laws, then laws there no tive all the mass civil disobedience mass demonstrations ’’ picket everything lines and else. response questions whether, in the event that he practice law, admitted to the he would advise others to changes, break the law order to secure desired stated, effect, declared that he would not. He that he would sought any simply those who his advice whether inform proposed He their acts would be violative the law. further indicated, however, that he would not interfere a client’s intentionally the law for moral reasons decision to violate illegality proposed advised as to the after he had been *10 attorney might that as an Petitioner also admitted conduct. rights “under part in a civil demonstration certain well take ’’ circumstances. hearings point in a member of the subcommittee At one portions deploring an article civil read aloud to of appeared in the American Bar Association disobedience asked to comment on the statement Journal.8 Petitioner was upon integrity means; that “We must insist the article laws, agree support protect and whether we with we must lip to particular We cannot settle for service a statute or not. lawyers.” legality. We cannot be ‘sometime’ statement, “in disagreement with this stated his think conclusion follows the sense that I don’t [the author’s] lays premises is, That I don’t think that he first out. from the every you obey lawyer’ won’t you a “sometime because are example, lawyers for think, to You know. I law the ‘T’. an war: It’s unfortunate Germany during the second world didn’t them, particularly judges, thing that a lot more punished fact, they and some of disobey In these laws. Society (1965) 8Leibman, Law A Threat To Our Disobedience: Civil Mights Segal Packer, Tweed, Compare and Civil 645. 51 A.B.A.J. (1964) Lawyer’s Bar J. to Law: A View 36 N.Y. State Disobedience 295, that, conclude, page 290, “Disobedience the authors at wherein justified, always unjustifiable. prima as we have can be is facie law obeying shown, particularly the law defeats the in which situations constitutionally guaranteed enjoyment civil liberties. But the burden legally always person that his violation of law is on the who claims is ’’ justifiable.
459 Third Reich. laws killed, obeying the for even them part somebody in of United States the southern think “I disobey duty, a some of lawyer—has obligation—as has an persecute and that really are unconstitutional laws that those everything else. ... I race their people on the basis of that that the author article kind of antithesis that the think . is a false one. . . the means and ends draws between good Certainly nobody hope end some would to achieve you just it; couldn’t do but on the means, because brutal just good nobody hope would to achieve end hand, other get have You have to some means any means. without books, have the laws on the And reasons we them. why today Rights passed Act was the Civil because reason happening happening in in Selma—what was what was of Birmingham. only activities, . . And because . it’s Negro people, but a their particularly lot of white passed laws that a lot of those have been supporters too, possible begin, only begin, talking but now it is things legally court, and in settling these not have about ’’ it. and so on demonstrate about adequately type support of evidence the refusal Does this certify petitioner respondent admission? We think not. Preliminarily, we every note that intentional violation ipso grounds not, facto, excluding of the law membership legal profession. (See individual Rothrock, from re P.2d 131 A.L.R. 16 Cal.2d [106 Miller, Baker N.E.2d v. Ind. A.L.R.2d involving 1393].) fraud, certain perjury, “There is conduct bribery theft, embezzlement, question where there is no turpitude that moral is involved. On the other hand, always exactly princi law does not coincide because the morality there are ples cases are crimes that would (Baker Miller, necessarily turpitude.” supra, involve moral v. p. eases, investigation *11 147.) at In such into the circumstances the act surrounding the commissionof must reveal some inde pendent beyond fact of a criminal act the bare t.o conviction justifies act moral unfitness and that the demonstrates show (In disciplinary action re Halli exclusion or other bar. 243, 768].) nan, 43 Cal.2d [272P.2d emphasized Supreme As States Court the United Examiners, supra, 232, 239, v. Board Bar 353 U.S. Schware high qualification, require standards of such as “A State can it good moral character or before admits proficiency law, its any qualification must have a bar, applicant to an capacity to applicant’s fitness or with connection rational applicant Obviously not be an could practice law. [Citations.] Republican Negro a a was a or or merely because excluded applying Even particular church. a member of standards, cannot of a State exclude officers permissible finding fails for their that he is no basis applicant when there invidiously is when their action standards, or meet these Konigsberg v. State (See also discriminatory. [Citation.]” 273.) supra, Bar, 353 U.S. driving suspicion stolen an arrest for In addition to arrested had at least' petitioner in Schware also been car, the syndicalism” in connection “suspicion of сriminal twice on dispute participated, once which he a bitter labor Neutrality Act which makes for violation join person within the States to United unlawful for any foreign In join army of state. another to hire or retain (cid:127) pointed first out that evidence, the court of this its evaluation any never indicted or convicted had been Schware arrested, but then he had been for which alleged offenses surrounding . . special facts . that “the declared further syndicalism] are rele- criminal 1934 arrests for [Schware’s Appar- present significance. shedding light their vant by police up picked strikers ently great numbers of many during Pedro and strike at San arrests series of ” (353 syndicalism.’ charged U.S. with ‘criminal these were suggesting of facts the absence p. 241.) The court noted at attempt using in an' violence force or that Schware (Schware v. government. national state or overthrow the 241-242.) Examiners, supra, pp. Bar at Board of Although was never tried for Schware violation of the 1917, the Neutrality Act of court stated that “even it be if violated, it that the law was does seem assumed that such turpitude—even in Many an persons indicated moral 1940. offense actively supported Spanish country Loyal- in this During prelude many War ist to World II Government. help they young men volunteered to causes believed idealistic commonly right. is known a number of Americans joined squadrons helped air defend China and Great country’s entry . prior into the war. . . Britain Americans would have Pew regarded their conduct as evidence of determining person’s whether a turpitude. character which he has good the nature committed must' offense (353 242-243.) (Italics pp. account.” be taken into U.S. wholly the arrests were concluded added.) court
461 n support finding insufficient that Schware had bad moral applied to character at the time he take the bar examination. Although perfect every respect,9 appears in there not clear analogy in between Schware and those in the the facts instant emphasized petitioner explicitly repudi case. It that should be ated violent civil disobedience and that all of the demonstra engaged peaceful. sincerity tions in which he The of in beliefs nonviolent civil disobedience and his high unchallenged by respond regard in this are motivation right disobedience, qualified civil ent. His sentiments on the of by large only numbers controversial, shared, however are similarly peacefully of youth idealistic who demonstrated have protest suppression throughout years nation in our recent rights legal by of scholars10 and Negroes, of but also some people.11 other еminent turpitude Whether these activities involve moral
n dependent upon the issues involved and the
of
motivation
course,
Of
"violator.
we do not mean to condone disobedience of
any
only
express
form;
strong
the law
mean
we
doubt
rights
that the leaders of current civil
today
movements are
upon
persons
will in
future be looked
lacking
so
case,
9Unlike the
all of
instant
Schware’s arrests had been made a
prior
application
considerable time
to the time he filed his
for admission
Bar of
Mexico.
State
New
10See, e.g., Freeman,
Might
Disobedience,
The
Protest cmd Civil
of
228; MacGuigan,
Law,
41 Ind.L.J.
Civil Disobedience and Natural
11
118; Cohn,
Amendment,
The
Catholic Law.
Firstness
the First
65 Yale
of
464, 478; Black,
Compatibility
The
L.J.
Problem
Civil Dis
of
Government,
obedience With American Institutions
43 Texas L.Rev.
492; Keeton,
Morality
Disobedience,
The
Civil
43 Texas L.Rev. 507.
noting
After
that "dissenters have been a
feature
the American
’’
‘‘
scene,
that,
author of the
last cited article states
Dissent has cost
dearly,
enlarged
multiplied
us
Vet
has also
our freedom and
its fruits.
injustices
grievous
persist
society,
important possibilities
our
dignity
saying,
of human
acknowledge
garments
and fulfillment remain unrealized.
In so
we
present
the law and the
social order are not seamless
right,
judged
light
but must be
altered
of moral
present disparity
external
to the law. To reduce the
standards
between
condition,
again
our
our
ideals and
actual
we should once
draw
our
enlarge
tradition of dissent. We should
the role of civil disobedience and
change.
so,
enhance its effectiveness for constructive
To do
we will
require
understanding
requirements
a fuller
than we have had of the
responsible civil disobedience and of the conditions that can make its
morally
(43
obligatory.”
practice
p. 507.)
Texas L.Rev. at
also
See
Law,
Symposium,
11;
Civil Disobedience and
Am.Crim.L.Q.
Law
Philosophy,
Symposium
(1964) pt. I;
edited
Hook
cf. Brown v.
Louisiana,
U.S.
L.Ed.2d
86 S.Ct.
on "the
’’
right
protest.
11See, e.g.,
Disobedience; Laski,
Theory
Thoreau on Civil
The
State
Story
Practice, pp. 65-66;
Gandhi,
My Experiments
The
M. K.
Truth, pt. V,
12; Plato, Republic, pt. "VIII; Aristotle, Politics,
With
eh.
pt. V.
qualifications
they
should
reason alone be
prevented
entering
profession.12
their
from
chosen
To
extent
that acts of civil disobedience involve viola
altogether necessary
proper
tions of the law it is
that the
punished.
prosecution,
violators be
But criminal
not exclusion
appropriate
bar,
from the
is the
punishing
means of
such
purposes
investigation by
offenders.
the bar
*13
applicant’s
into an
moral character should
limited
assur
be
if
that,
admitted,
ance
will
not obstruct the administration
justice
unscrupulously in
caрacity
of
or otherwise act
(See
Examining
an officerof the court.
Rosenthal v. State Bar
Committee,
211, 213,
In
991];
tioner’s Petitioner’s version of er ’s these events brother. differs emphatically materially from Moore’s. He denied Moore’s petitioner had “blind-sided” statement him. Petitioner anybody he had never hit from the side when stated that expecting recipient was not it. Petitioner claimed blow only disregarded his that he hit Moore after Moore admonition response away eye and had struck him over the to move pushing away.16 not think petitioner’s him We do that this petitioner deprived turpitude that such should be event shows privilege practicing law. fights years prior all occurred more than six The other application bar, admission to the at times for 22 years age. he was between 16 and when evening of June testified that on Thalhamer James walking back to their car friends were 1959, he and some bowling alley in Thalhamer parking lot of a Greenbrae. by group called a of about heard themselves and his friends Thalhamer knew among whom were several who young men, group face they turned around to high school. As from petitioner right side and hit allegedly up came to Thalhamer’s causing jaw places and him tо lose breaking in two him, his away, run that he tried to stated teeth. Thalhamer three again. attempting hit him Peti him, petitioner followed materially Thal from affair differed of the version tioner’s fight his with Thalhamer claimed hamer’s. prevent Thalhamer petitioner endeavored to when resulted Llewellyn, a attacking Richard from his friends and several petitioner’s. friend petitioner consequence encounter, indicted As a was Jury County of Marin violation by of Penal the Grand (assault by likely produce means of force section Code jury disagreed bodily injury). At trial the great and was attorney district later caused the discharged. The indictment justice.” “in the interests of Petitioner testi- dismissed be to fied that guilty find him jury unable to because was story” by Thalhamer and invented the other “fantastic these witnesses witness, because contradicted one prosecution Smith, a friend Delbert of Thalhamer and because another testify prosecution, broke down scheduled to who According brother, Thalhamer test. at a lie-detector 16Moore, to the Patrick Hallinan have been admitted bar Millard and just inquiry prior No to their described. admission was the events since concerning any by the Bar Examiners these altercations. of them made of appear change story and his however, Smith’s failure to trial result induced at thе criminal were the of fear witness by petitioner by made and his threats brothers. Prior charge against petitioner, Thalhamer, dismissal of the criminal brought against guardian, damages through his civil suit for petitioner ultimately compromised court which was out of may payment $5,000. Thalhamer be conceded youthful fault, should was here at but this brawl disqualify petitioner practicing from law. not now attempted friends the fall of some fraternity being private party enter a County. held in Marin at a home companions Neither nor his were members *17 fraternity. Brough, fraternity, of the John a of the member private petitioner party told and his friends that the awas they Brough affair and that not that welcome. testified petitioner then hit him with knock his sufficient force to glasses up against Brough force him wall. then off was by petitioner. police beset another individual who was not The arrived after affray, soon arrests were made nor no any litigation did civil criminal or result. exactly happened
Petitioner could not remember what that years night, ago, but, recollection, nine to the best of his he only pushed Brough argument had Brough an the course of between petitioner’s companions. and one of stated that his obviously stupid involvement in this “an melee was ’ thing ’; that he and his friends should not have been there in place; regrets the first and that he now what he did. This certainly melee was we hold ill-conceived. But cannot that every youngster party gets fight who crashes a into should, years later, privilege practicing be denied the law. trip On a ski March and three friends stopped at the Lodge Edelweiss Ski When, coffee. after juke playing box, they began popular a then do dance step “Bop,” Cotton, called Kenneth proprietor establishment, asked leave, them to he apparently deemed dancing their group offensive.The started to did leave but petitioner’s do so before one of friends challenged Cotton’s right put lodge. them out his Petitioner stated that he friend’s said, get
took his arm and “Let’s out of here.” At point that up slapped Cotton’s wife ran in stepped Cotton face. Mr. between her and petitioner, he, believing going Cotton him, was to hit hit Cotton once or day petitioner twice. next The was custody by taken into police charged County local and was in the Lake Judicial District with violation of Penal 415 (disturbing Code sections peace), (assault), (battery). and 242 On the advice of petitioner pleaded attorney, guilty charges. his to these He was sentenced suspended, months in county jail, to three which was pay fine of fight, $150.17 This years ago, inexcusable, repre- oсcurred was but it does not justify denying petitioner sent such conduct as lege privi- practicing law. May 1954, petitioner, his brother and a friend of the driving brother were County. near Shell Beach in Marin stopped While car stop sign passed at a a car them with three sailors in it. The sailors made obscene gesture, causing petitioner to drive after them. The sailors pulled alongside roadway their car after blew got his horn. Petitioner out of his car as did the driver of the petitioner began other car and “bawling” having him out for gesture. made the When the swing peti- sailor took a him, tioner knocked him down went back to the ear and bawled out the other two sailors. When asked these sailors what he wanted, petitioner replied “just you guys wanted to show you can’t doing things come around here this.” like was, you answer to that “Do want some beer? There’s some on ’’ the floor of the car. Take it. six-packs Petitioner saw several floor, of beer took some itof and then left. days later, petitioner A few testified, picked up he “was robbery armed something.” As a result arrest he juvenile was made a ward of the period court years; for a suspended driver's license was for three months; and he was fined an amount not shown in Immediately the record. *18 petitioner after the over, incident was thought stuрid it awas thing do; and he thinks so now. He declared that he would repeat type this present of conduct at the This time. teen- age brawl, inexcusable, while does not indicate an abandoned malignant heart. While in seated his car in a San Rafael in 1953, drive-in by group years ago, approached Oliver Hartzell was a of seven youths, one petitioner. of whom was According Hartzell, brought against 17Cotton petitioner a civil action and recovered a $10,000 judgment, general which award punitive included both dam ages. granted A new trial parties agreed was unless the to reduce the judgment $6,000. parties total agree, The failed to and so the new granted. ultimately trial was The case was dismissed for the failure of bring statutory Cotton to dismissal period. to trial within judgment The (Cotton Hallinan, Cal.App.2d was affirmed. v. Cal. 40].) Rptr. “looking fight.” youths complained were for a He to the damaged had his car police group that the with kicks and police officers, Hartzell, youths several and the seven blows. police there, station discuss the matter. While went officers, investigating station, a after noise outside the that the air had been let out of the discovered tires on Hart- youths At the automobile. same time the seven zell’s in scattered They up, were soon rounded all directions. some of them being petitioner’s in found ear. recollection of this Petitioner’s incident was understand- hazy.”
ably “very friends, his One of who had come to the had him, gotten “argument” into an drive-in with or “alter- picked with Hartzell and had up by cation” result been police. companions and his police Petitioner went to the they help if station to see could the friend. Petitioner denied damaging letting that he was involved the car inor the air by friends, the tires. This was his caught out of done who were away. act and ran did away, Petitioner not think ran exactly. unable recall There is some other evidence to which reference should be petitioner’s during made. Several of classmates testified that Hastings at attendance was seen on numerous eye occasionswith black or with cuts and bruises on his face classmate, however, or knuckles. Another testified that she had never seen such condition. Petitioner claimed only fights that he was two while he was law school: fight Young with Moore and the one Democrats conven- tion, fight and that in the latter he was not marked. fights these Most of inexcusable. admitted expressed this and maturity behavior, remorse for his stating that with outgrown pugnacious he had attitude. As to the fights,
three recent convincing most there was and sometimes provocation uncontradicted evidence of and self-defense. addition, several witnesses offered .explana reasonable petitioner’s quarrelsome during tions of nature his formative years. Thus Walter Beekh, physician the Hallinan family Dr. specialist in medicine, and a internal testified that he exam July 9, 1959, ined and discovered “a marked degree hypothyroidism” thyroid deficiency. The witness man)'- petitioner’s individuals, stated that as in case, such a glandular deficiency through changed manifests itself person ality traits and behavior. Thus Dr. Beckh ascribed temper impulsive thyroid deficiency. short nature to his physician theory believed his was confirmed the obser- *19 thyroxin that
vation when took cure the tablets to deficiency and its manifestations he at once became “more friendly” ingrown.” when, period, and “less And for a brief neglected again tablets, take “real to became ’’ tempered. mean short agreed testimony his Petitioner and mother with the Dr. change that [petitioner’s] Beckh was a definite “there thyroid.” personality when he started take the But it feeling appears primary be her causes of her son’s lay developments bellicosity unique during in certain period period his During petitioner’s adolescence. this prominent becoming increasingly father, attorney, controversial, figure community, if not a in the as a notorious рublicized widely political his result of and unorthodox views (among things, he ran other for President as the candidate of Independent Progressive outspoken his Party) defense unpopular various causes and individuals. of the Because controversy surrounding petitioner experienced father, his unpopularity” ostracism in isolation while “social Occasionally grammar he and his brothers student school. by boys political physically abused older because of the family. testified associated with Hallinan views up by example, badly that one older brother was beaten opposition the Korean marines “because our three petitioner’s gave point At father his sons formal War.” instruction wife, training boxing. According his you going hold that, “If are petitioner’s father believed fight.” According to opinions, you have to be able radical importuning petitioner initially resisted the Hallinan, Mrs. fight. himself to learn to Once he reconciled father that he his training provided by his necessity, however, alleged the father opponent—as is a formidable converted into above, by by facts the name only outlined attested ’’ “Kayo known: Hallinan. regularly he is which report final full significance that in its It is of some Examiners, in which was recommended of Bar Committee admission, the subcommittee petitioner not be certified hearings petitioner’s majority of the into all but one conducted heard and saw vast and which character relating testified, disregarded the evidence who the witnesses fists to tendency the use his to resort to its recom- The subcommittee based personal differences. settle concerning participation the evidence solely mendation efficacyof non- as to the beliefs of civil disobedience in acts independent examination After an civil disobedience. violent apparent record, agreement we are with the belief of peti- of the subcommittee the evidence the members *20 intemperate fisticuffs, censurable, resort to however tioner’s support good does not the conclusion he lacks the question requisite admission. The character is not whether petitioner’s question can conduct be condoned. It cannot. The pres- is whether such conduct demonstrates that he does not ently practice possess the character to be entitled to law. We think it does not. majority fights
The
in which
engaged
of
has
many years prior
filing
occurred
application
to the
of his
They
properly
can
admission.
be
classified as adolescent
(Cf. Dudney
Bar,
behavior.
770],
214
238,
v. State
Cal.
240
P.2d
[4
“youth
inexperi
where
court indicates that
may
mitigating
ence”
circumstances.)
be
The three most
fights,
ignore
recent
if
provocation
even we
the evidence of
or
extenuating
other
circumstances, all of which occurred after
1959,
ity”
“baseness,
do not demonstrate such
deprav
vileness and
turpitude.
as to amount to moral
of
acts,
nature
these
moreover, does not bear a direct
relationship
practice
fitness to
Virtually
law.
all of the
disciplinary
admission and
eases which we have
upheld decisions of the State Bar
applicants
to refuse to admit
or
disbar, suspend
or otherwise
members
censure
of the bar
have involved
upon
acts which bear
the individual’s manifest
dishonesty
thereby provide
a reasonable basis for the
applicant
conclusion that
attorney
cannot be relied
upon
obligations
fulfill
the moral
upon
incumbent
members
legal profession.
(See, e.g., Noland v.
Bar,
State
63
Cal.Rptr.
Cal.2d 298
305, 405
[tampering
P.2d
[46
with
129]
potential jurors] ;
selection of
v.
Bar,
Call State
45
104
Cal.2d
P.2d
[fraud];
Bar,
Werner v. State
supra,
[287
761]
24
21
grand
Cal.2d
[bribery
611
; Bryant
Bar,
v. State
theft]
Cal.2d 285
P.2d
[complicity in
[131
usurious
523]
transac
Stephens
;
Bar,
v. State
472 Cruickshank, Bar, [forgery]; 183 In re supra, 211 Cal.
State
[embezzlement].) Although
Cal.App. 496
P.
47
1038]
[190
may
praiseworthy
not be
it
petitioner’s past behavior
does
honesty
veracity
does it show him
upon his
nor
reflect
attorney.
discharge of
duties of an
proper
unfit
Regents,
(Cf. Barsky
347 U.S.
470
L.Ed.
v. Board
[98
(dissenting opinion
Frankfurter,
J.).)
829,
Respondent’s contention such attenuated evidence is based on and truthfulness candor length. This unnecessary discuss this matter at that it is in his petitioner’s failure to mention is based conclusion pending in a will contest was an intervener application that he England in he had been convicted and that superior in court footpath pound. one blocking a and fined 1960 of the crime only a that he was petitioner testified contest, the will As to acquired had father who acting his party, nominal signed a petitioner’s name. cause of action request without father’s papers in action his number of paying reading stated them. Petitioner any attention to simply he action because his failed list role that he substantially think testified His father of it. did not petitioner stated reason Similarly, same effect. “forgot England was that he arrest his neglected to disclose ’’ completely. all about peti list of arrests which the extensive In view of application, his failure to disclose in his bar did include tioner England role the will contest and his nominal the arrest Cеrtainly, in all view of regarded as de minimis. must be of these two rela petitioner’s nondisclosure arrests, admitted reasonably have been could not unimportant matters tively harm cause. disclosure would the belief motivated has unintentional nondisclosure ease California In a similar Hovey, (In re the bar. justify exclusion from been held not 1019].) Cal.Unrep. 203, 210 P. respondent so lack merit no contentions Other required. discussion exercising inde- reading record, and our entire After evidence, find weight we judgment as *22 pendent that Bar Examiners of the Committee conclusion that the required moral character possess good the petitioner does justified by the bar is not admission to applicants for the record demon- contrary find that we record, and to being so, This petitioner possesses character. such that strates to petitioner is entitled be respects, being qualified in all practice law. admitted to certify Examiners of Bar that Committee
It is ordered petitioner qualified to court as this one to be prac- admitted to tice law. Traynor, J., Tobriner, J., J., C. Peek, Mosk, J., Burke, and
J., concurred. McCOMB, J.I An dissent. examination of the record and reading majority opinion of the ample discloses to me evi respondent refusing dence to sustain the action of in certify to petitioner praсtice this to court for admission to law Cali fornia. attorney’s requires support
An oath him “to the Constitu States and tion of the United the Constitution of the State faithfully California, discharge and to any duties of [sic] (Bus. attorney Code, & law. ...” Prof. 6067.) It § duty attorney support of an to the Constitution and laws and (Bus. of this Code, United States & State. Prof. (a).) At one time stated that subd. he would § take the oath it; without reservation would observe on the hand, everybody obligation other that has an he stated to uphold extent,” a certain the law “to and that there are some unjust manifestly laws that are which he didn’t think any uphold. body obligation had an to The record discloses that right believes acts the belief that it is to strongly end violate the law order achieve some believed socially politically him to be desirable. respondent’s grounds certify peti- One refusal to of the tioner was that “the record as a whole establishes that he lacks 457), majority opinion 1As the points out, p. asked, (and regard overriding consideration I "Well, stand that under overriding consideration) rights feel that this is an of civil you it and the United is it that Constitution, your position you States feel gain if to violate a law this is in order other necessary these proper ends? To enforce civil rights of other people." responded follows: "I feel that are you there instances when have tried all where, wouldn’t right In other I other resorts ... think would be words, Sheraton-Palaee just go (you us down to sit down and say know) hiring Negro to talk ‘We are here about but when employees’; negotiate, we have tried to when we have tried and have picket tried things they the other won’t I think us, all even talk to in those then, justified going sitting-in. are that circumstances, I think that people (and theoretically) breaking really are not they the law. I if That is not a violation law. But even they should think, none- go jail have theless be instructed for it ... if it I was me, willing guess it. I I be to do I mean, eventually would will have to spend time for what we did there at the Sheraton-Palaee some and the ‘Auto progress I feel Bow’ and so because it made so on; much rights willing civil I’m problem terms city, pay ’ ’ for it. Even if it isn’t reversed. price *23 ’’ opinion that majority is of truthfulness. candor failure arrests, list his an extensive revealed since for on all the facts called complete disclosure of to make must be permission take the bar examination application my opinion, the members minimis. In de regarded as Examiners before of Bar and the Committee subcommittee position than we in a appeared were better whom agree I testimony, and of his pass the truthfulness are to with their recommendation. 16, 1966.] Dec. No. 7756. Bank.
[Sac. Petitioners, COLEMAN E. al., v. et P. SHIVELY JOHN Respondent; Hearing Officer, etc., STEWART, THE OF EXAMINERS OF MEDICAL BOARD Party in Interest. CALIFORNIA, Real STATE OF