*1 T. of A. Application Matter In the For Admission Maryland To The Bar of Term, 12, September No.
[Misc. 9, 1979. Per Curiam Order November Opinion December Filed
PER CURIAM ORDER later, For in an to be filed opinion reasons to be stated November, is, day this 9th
ORDERED, by Appeals Maryland, Court of majority of the Court concurring, exception noted *2 16,1979, State Board of Examiners on in Law October be, removed, above-entitled matter and it is hereby, and is further
ORDERED, T., applicant, taking that the A. upon oath prescribed statute, by the practice be admitted law in this State. J.,
The cause was considered and by Murphy, Smith, C. and Digges, Eldridge, Orth, JJ. Davidson, Cole J.,C. delivered the opinion of the Court. Smith Murphy, Digges, JJ., Smith, J., and dissenting opinion dissent. filed a infra, J., at page 516 Digges, concurs. which applicant Whether the presently possesses requisite moral character fitness that to the justify would his admission Bar of Maryland is issue us for determination. record,
Because of the applicant’s criminal the Character Committee for the Third hearing Judicial Circuit held 13, 1979, pursuant March Governing Rule of the Rules Admission to the Bar of The Maryland. three members Committee who to consider the unanimously convened matter recommended to the State Board of Law Examiners practice. be admitted to The conducted an Board 30, 1979, additional evidentiary hearing on October unanimously concluding that “amply demonstrated his full complete and and his rehabilitation present good character.”
I. The applicant testified on hearings his own behalf at both virtually the same presented evidence was before the Character Committee and the Board. As disclosed record, the applicant, born in no academic May of had or disciplinary problems throughout nine years his first and, school. He was a good high student in his year first school, he played soccer, on the school’s basketball 1957, however, baseball teams. During the summer of applicant began drinking cough Cosanyl, an syrup, addictive Eventually, derivative. became containing opiate substance, four to seven four-ounce drinking to this addicted high school explained that every day. bottles partly he took it drug, him to the introduced associates out of curiosity partly out of boredom. addiction, lost interest
As a result of his during work, not in athletics participate academic and did disciplinary school. He became year high his second suspended 1958he was and in and December of problem June February rules. administrative for violation various being in an from school for he was expelled unauthorized school wing building. Allowed to return month later suspended he was time, the By this grounds permission. school leaving without longer he was no was so acute that applicant’s addiction *3 student, officially a he withdrew functioning so capable from school. but years,
The for two applicant Cosanyl used about time, At drug on a prescription 1959the was basis. placed heroin, illegal narcotics such as applicant began using the led five drug His addiction to morphine dilaudid. 1959, In he drug-related February criminal offenses. when for eighteen years old, the arrested applicant was was He possession given probation was barbiturates. 1960, charged In the with
judgment. applicant March of was drug He into a store and larceny. gone and another addict had The forty cigarettes. attempted walk out with cartons he charge was later dismissed. admitted that applicant heroin if his cigarettes purchase would have sold the theft attempted had been successful. In for two February applicant was arrested — dilaudid, narcotic, possession possession
offenses of a five-year suspended of narcotics He paraphernalia. received a unsupervised for on placed sentence this offense was again was probation. September applicant for arrested for possession paraphernalia, narcotics store, had larceny applicant in a drug narcotics. While gone behind the from counter and had stolen narcotics At apprehended by police cabinet. he was time offense,
larceny the narcotics paraphernalia was discovered in his possession. offender, As a second the applicant was sentenced ato mandatory five-year term of imprisonment at Maryland House of Correction. He also received a concurrent five-year sentence for February, 1961narcotic offenses, and three-year concurrent sentence for the larceny of the narcotics. The applicant served forty-four in prison. months incarcerated,
While the applicant believed that he would not again resort to incarceration, the use of drugs. During his he received a High Equivalence School certificate. Upon his release June of made some effort to drugs. abstain from He began spend time with his old associates, however, and three or later, four months resumed using heroin. The applicant continued regularly using heroin for months, about eleven until approximately August time, of 1966.At this he finally came to the realization that he needed help, and went to Dr. Emmett Davis.
Dr. Davis began treating dolophine, with tablet form of methadone. Although the applicant did not immediately stop heroin, using his use gradually decreased. In the again charged was with shoplifting cirgarettes. cartons of He received a three-month suspended sentence for this offense and placed probation for years. two offense, Since this shoplifting applicant has not charged been any with criminal offense. As observed by the Board: stated that all “[t]he shoplifting incidents occurred in connection his use of drugs and were a of his part money effort to obtain the *4 necessary to support drug habit. There was no evidence of any separate shoplifting problem.” applicant’s in of shoplifting conviction did not interfere the progress making with the he was — methadone treatment. one By August year 1967 within — taking applicant using methadone the heroin. stopped time, He testified drugs that he has not used illicit since that period a spans years. which twelve
In August personal drug Dr. Davis’ efforts to treat Research, addiction into Inc., evolved Man Alive During the in Baltimore. program methadone maintenance the staff’s program, under this treatment applicant’s repeated urinalysis tests of his behavior observation drugs. from illicit that he had abstained disclosed Committee Character According to the evidence turning point in the Board, of 1967 was year and a drugs, illicit stopped using He had life. applicant’s marriage. In July first daughter of his was born pay program found a that would shortly applicant after the College education, Community enrolled in the for his he City time, for the Baltimore At this he worked Baltimore. In Department. January Water with Man Alive as an
accepted part-time employment for He later worked Assistant. Administrative Counselor, Financial organization Addiction an Director. As Administrator, Acting Administrative and as closely than monitored more employee, was required to leave in treatment. He was nonemployee patients specimens under direct observation. per two urine week Community receiving degree After his A.A. from College, University at the became student in (UMBC) February in Maryland County Baltimore in June undergraduate degree He from UMBC received his to have marked another appears of 1973. The year he year, of that applicant. April milestone program to transferred from the Man Alive Glenwood Life-Counseling from begin Center detoxification seven methadone. The detoxification which lasted process, 29,1973. The months, successfully completed on was October years thus shows that as of six evidence November As using methadone. passed applicant stopped have since the Board, pointed applicant’s out medical records during programs participation rehabilitation of Man Center reveal Life-Counseling Alive and Glenwood he urinalysis demonstrating extensive and prolonged status.” achieving drug free “completely successful 1973, he graduated After the from UMBC College study Park to graduate attended school at wife, sought from his first philosophy. Divorced *5 custody obtained He an daughter. his thereafter submitted attending application accepted. to law school and was While school, law he for a Baltimore employed bookkeeper was as City time, firm. At terminated his applicant law part-time Alive, he although extensive with Man employment continued Man an working every for Alive other weekend as Addiction early applicant Counselor until 1978. The his connections this organization, maintained as his wife, second whom he is head married nurse as at Man Alive. The serves presently Alive, to Man Treasurer and is a member of its Board Directors.
In granted March of was full executive pardon his criminal ten Approximately convictions. later, January months he He completed law school. firm, continued his employment bookkeeper as a for the law and, in the summer of assumed he duties as a law clerk as well. The firm applicant employment offered the upon associate with the firm his admission the Bar. on Bar July, was a successful candidate examination. Board,
At hearing before the was made inquiry respecting the motivation behind the applicant’s unusual success rehabilitating himself from addiction. The applicant indicated despair felt upon examining his life after his release from prison in recognized June He his obsession with drugs, and said that all see he could in the future prison ultimately death. He was fearful being arrested and imprisoned again, and experienced great deal of guilt in spending drugs money and thereby denying his wife and daughter various necessities. Out of a sense desperation, he decided to change began his life. He discover his capabilities. great He derived satisfaction from the successful completion undergraduate program, did not jeopardize want to accomplishments. educational The applicant told the Character that he Committee experienced and weathered law school and bar examinations that would be.totally him to inconceivable for return to using drugs during any period of stress. Bar, to the for admission recommending *6 have appears to stated that
the Character Committee “[h]e to be and seems society quite to to well adjusted his return activities, prior from his fully totally rehabilitated drugs.” in the illicit use himself wherein involved feeling his is our that that Committee further stated “[i]t thing of the drugs of illicit is in the use a early involvement now, and is experience from the and that he has learned past, fully years, completely for many and hai5 been rehabilitated.” character, the respect to his
With A strong personal partner recommendations. received the Board at is testified at employed law firm which he really firm He “I think the actions hearing. stated: that regard to our confidence speak any louder than words with with us for applicant’s] rehabilitation. He’s been [in now, of which he the first two approximately years three any our never concern spent bookkeeper; as and there was any month.” The up that end short at the end we would partner stated that the firm had offered position his to the practice associate’s to law after admission Bar, in the the firm has confidence that absolute returning drugs. law applicant’s ability practice without testimony had heard the The Character Committee earlier firm which the managing of the law at partner personal explained that he had employed. was He He rehabilitation. told principle commitment to of Dismas Committee that he the Chairman of the Board House, had been halfway-house program persons who knowledge previously explained personal He incarcerated. been process persons who have rehabilitation He confidence and trust expressed incarcerated. the utmost question no absolutely and said “there’s my mind he is rehabilitated.”
II. the Bar of Governing Rule 2 d of the Admission to Rules at times have Maryland provides applicant “shall all the burden of moral character before proving 514 Court____” Committee,
Character
the Board and the
We have
said that no litmus test exists for determining whether an
applicant for admission to the Bar possesses good moral
character. In Application
H.,
re
of David
283 Md.
392
(1978);
A.2d 83
S.,
In re Application
of Allan
282 Md.
A.2d 271(1978).
S.,
In Allan
set
Court
forth the controlling
principles for determining whether an applicant with a
criminal record has the requisite present moral character
fitness to
where,
be admitted to the Bar.
here,
We said that
an applicant for admission to the Bar is
shown
have
crime,
committed a
the nature of the offense must be taken
into consideration in determining whether his present moral
character
good.
Examiners,
Schware v. Board of Bar
232, 77
752, 1 L.
U.S.
S. Ct.
(1957);
Ed. 2d 796
In re Monaghan,
126Vt.
(1966).
A.2d 665
We said that although prior
*7
conviction is not conclusive of
present
a lack of
good moral
character, particularly where the offense occurred a number
of years previous to the applicant’s request
admission,
for
adds to his burden of establishing present good character by
requiring convincing proof of
full
complete
Davis,
rehabilitation.
Application
273,
See
of
38 Ohio St. 2d
313
(1974);
N.E.2d 363
Application
508,
of Alpert, 269 Or.
525
P.2d
(1974). Thus,
1042
prior
we observed that a
conviction
must be taken into account in the overall measurement of
character and considered in connection with other evidence
of subsequent rehabilitation and present moral character. See
Dreier,
In re
(3rd
258
1958),
F.2d 68
In
Cir.
re Florida
Examiners,
Board of
(Fla. 1966).
Bar
515 secondary is past moral in the good character absence present. in moral character the the existence Davis, In See also Monaghan, supra. re Application supra; Annot, Annot, (1978); A.L.R.2d 88 A.L.R.3d (1959). applicant possesses
The recommendation that Board’s Allan great weight. moral requisite character entitled its considering In S., supra, 282 at 690-91. Md. its own recommendation, however, the Court makes present independent applicant’s evaluation of by made the Character “upon character the records based Governing Rule 4 of the Rules the Board.” c Committee and Maryland. Bar Admission to the in Allan articulated S.
Applying principles note, case, considering the nature we offenses, to his directly all were related applicant’s Furthermore, pointed out the Character addiction. drugs. Committee, a user and not dealer offenses, must we In the nature of the criminal addition to criminal that has since the length elapsed consider the time case, has time been passage conduct occurred. offense significant applicant’s last and substantial hearing the Board years occurred more than thirteen Furthermore, not used has October of 1979. period spanning illicit time drugs August since has been approximately years. Finally, twelve six than detoxified from methadone more completely years. pointed S.,
As out in upon Allan crucial matter which *8 character we focus is the moral applicant’s present must fitness, of his convincing record by evidenced the conclusions wholly supports rehabilitation. record is the Character Committee and Board illegal activity. his prior from fully rehabilitated moral good character undertaking prove present convincing medical evidence only presented not use, character produced his rehabilitation from but also of his particularly strong endorsements gave witnesses who into moral character. He also introduced good 516
record
letters
recommendation from
legal
members
and lay community.
letters
These
attested to the applicant’s
present good character and are entitled to respectful
S.,
consideration
Allan
supra,
Court.
It so ordered. Smith, J., dissenting: I regret
It is again that once from the dissent practice admission of an this Court. individual See C., 244, 245, In Application re 286 Howard Md. 407 A.2d (1979), S., 1124 and In re of Allan Application Md. (1978). 693, 700, A.2d Part problem of the is a apparently my difference between colleagues and me as to what constitutes moral character. seem of the one They to be belief that can said be possess good moral character if he has violated the not law lately. Paine, I not way. do see it that Thomas the political pamphleteer Revolution, of the American observed in The (1783), Crisis American No. XXIII “Character is much easier kept than recovered.” I agree. English
The Random House Dictionary Language 1967) ed. (unabridged pertinent defines “character” in part: 1. the of features and aggregate traits form the apparent person individual nature of some or trait; 2. one or thing. such characteristic.3. feature or quality qualities honesty, ethical .... 4. like; or the courage, integrity____5. reputation____ 6. good repute at [Id. .... *9 (unabridged Dictionary International Third New
Webster’s subject: on this part 1961) pertinent states ed. 10: a good .... when esp. reputation
1: 9: ... of moral typically qualities moral composite resolution, firmness blended excellence force, judgment---- ethics, self-discipline, high at 876.] \Id. English Dictionary Heritage
The American term 1976) defines ed. (New College Language part: pertinent or structure moral ethical The combined 3.
1. ... integrity; strength; or ethical 4. Moral .... person aof description A10. .... Reputation:
fortitude. at attributes, traits, or
person’s abilities----[Id. said (1878),Judge Grason State, 50 Md. v.World
the Court: that the evidence contended
It was further inadmissible, it related because officer police accused, being instead the character of the reputation Character reputation. confined to his objection no terms, can see and we synonymous are introduced, character and to the evidence of a “common of the accused was reputation him. at knew the witness during thief” the time [Id.
56 (emphasis original).] 1979) relative (5th states Dictionary ed. Black’s Law character: belong which qualities of moral aggregate general person; distinguish an individual
to and That attributes. distinguishing of the one’s result habit, of ethical aggregate or or predisposition to a person, attach qualities, which believed report opinion of the common strength or disposition fixed person’s him. A concerning life, his habits to others tendency, as evidenced through the manifestation of which his general *10 reputation character, for the possession good of a or otherwise, is obtained. The estimate attached to an individual or in the thing community. The opinion generally person entertained of a derived from the common report of the people acquainted who are with him. Although “character” “reputation” and are often used synonymously, the terms are distinguishable. is, “Character” is what a man and “reputation” supposed is what he is in to be what people say is. “Character” on depends attributes possessed, and on “reputation” attributes which others one The former possess. signifies believe reality and the latter merely accepted what be reality at at present. [Id. 211.] As good character it says: totality
Sum or of virtues of a person which forms the generally reputation basis for one’s in the community, though reputation is distinct from his character. at [Id.
If
young
this
man has in
earlier
fact reformed from his
drug
I
stealing,
delighted.
habit
am
The fact that it is
habits,
believed
some that he will not revert to his former
however, does not in my
automatically
view
establish
moral character.
the majority
Where would
draw the line? As
judges
prior
experienced practitioners
they
of the law
know that many homicides are a once in a lifetime
proposition in which there
no
will be
recurrence of the
giving
Thus,
circumstances
in
rise to
homicide.
law,
say
absence
evidence of other violations of
one could
person
that the
my colleagues propose
has reformed. Do
permitting
lawyers
convicted murderers to
Maryland
become
they
since
have not
anyone lately?
killed
I think it safe to say
many
lawyers
whom we
disbar for crimes
once
involving
turpitude
would not
again
in
engage
such conduct.
of them have striven
Some
standing
over
in
mightily
long periods
regain good
of time to
their
judges
passing
communities. Yet the same
are
who
ago unanimously
a few short months
application
this
but
Messrs.
denied reinstatement
to the bar of
Court
Loker,
Loker,
In re
285 Md.
Dippel, and Raimondi.1 See
285 Md.
(1979),
Dippel,
Raimondi proverbial straight each had on the been path for longer narrow a time than the here. He can period count since only October 1973. here were be if noted that
It should be
convictions
prior
his
proceeding,
in court
called as a
a
witness
would,
to attack
could,
be used
undoubtedly
§
(a)
Courts
(1974) 10-905
Code
credibility. Maryland
Huston,
Md.
Article;
281
v.
Proceedings
State
Judicial
State, 230 Md.
(1977), and Cousins v.
459-61,
Qur to be himself show requirement that candidate purpose for the character is good possessed said have In the same manner we protecting public. not for erring attorney on an imposition a sanction for the but lawyer individual of the
purposes punishment Levitt, Comm’n v. Attorney Griev. protection public. (1979); Attorney Griev. Comm’n A.2d 286 Md. Judge Digges in Loker. did not sit 1. Lockhart,
v.
586, 596, 597,
285 Md.
I am authorized to Judge Digges state that concurs in the expressed. views here
ROGER EDWARD GARDNER v. OF STATE
MARYLAND Term, [No.
Decided December