*1 judges variety As we see a wide of law-
yers every day. Their the courtroom professional range
talents skills appalling. I think is a
brilliant to there He
place spectrum on that for Mr. Demos. worst, neither nor
would be the best record us is no
but before there deny
reason to him admission to the bar. BAKER,
In re Robert Petitioner.
No. 88-223. Appeals.
District of Court of Columbia
Argued June Aug.
Decided Isbell, S. B. with whom Thomas
David Bederman, Williamson, J. Jr. David brief, D.C., ap- Washington, were on curiae, for court amici pointed by the petitioner. D.C., Reischel, Washington,
Charles L.
respondent,.
on Admissions.
NEWMAN, FERREN and
Before
TERRY,
Judges.
Associate
NEWMAN,
Judge:
Associate
applied
for admission
Robert Baker
the District of Columbia
pursuant
December
of the Rules of
District
permits
Appeals,
Columbia Court
standing
for five
active membér
*2
He filed an
Military Appeals.
jurisdiction to Court of
years of the
of another
bar
the Bar of the
admission to
application for
upon a
admitted without examination
1985,
2,
December
Columbia on
District of
character as it re-
showing of
moral
pending
application
and while
practice of law. The Commit-
lates to the
and was
examination
passed the Utah bar
(“Committee”) initially
tee on Admissions
6,
October
the Utah Bar on
admitted to
admis-
his
declined
1987.
ac-
grounds that he had not been
sion on
tively engaged
of law for
Atlanta, Georgia in No-
Baker moved
years
he failed to demon-
and that
1980,
apart-
he sublet an
where
vember
to his
strate
moral character due
“pro-
a
what is called
ment and established
respond-
and lack of candor
building,
evasiveness
office
in a downtown
file” office
re-
inquiries.
mail,
On
ing to the Committee’s
and
meeting,
him with
provided
which
mand,
again refused to cer-
During
this time Bak-
facilities.
telephone
solely
California,
application,
relying
this time
tify and
a house
er also owned
had failed to
upon
ground
physically
that Baker
suggests
that he was
evidence
character. Hav-
most of the
demonstrate
much or
located in California
1985,
filed in
left Geor-
September
the record and briefs
Baker
reviewed
time. In
matter,
program in
study
Baker be admit-
in an LL.M.
gia
we order that
year.
Brussels, Belgium for one academic
ted to the bar.
application for ad-
to Baker’s
Pursuant
I
Colum-
of the District of
mission to the Bar
from the San Fernando
graduated
by
prepared
bia,
report was
a routine
After
Valley College
May
1975.
Law
Examiners and
of Bar
National Conference
attempts
pass
17,
unsuccessful
March
eleven
by the Committee
received
examination, he took and
from
bar
included six letters
report
California
integ-
Georgia
attesting
examina-
passed
July
bar
character references
ability.1 In addi-
legal
that state’s bar on rity,
tion and was admitted to
and
independent
tion,
fail
Baker went on to
letters from
November
there were
attended,
sources,
including
five more
the schools
the California bar examination
9, 1981,
to which
employers, other bars
June
he was admitted
former
times. On
admitted, all of which
applied
the United had
been
of the Tax Court of
bar
record with
he had a clean
14, 1985,
States,
January
he was
indicated
and on
However,
matters.2
respect
disciplinary
of the United States
admitted
bar
Hill, CA,
L.C.,
(6)
Report
Pleasant
following
Character
report
charac-
1. Baker's
contains the
7, 1986,
relation-
personal and business
March
reports
of Baker
ter
submitted on behalf
("[Baker]
P.M.V.,
years
has handled
ship of over 10
(1)
Report of
Bev-
Character
references:
family
my
legal
friends_
immediate
Hills, CA,
27, 1986,
matters
personal
erly
and busi-
Feb.
always
found Robert
I have
("He
very
years
relationship
is a
of 12
ness
very responsible in both business
to be
extremely high moral
individual with
honest
integrity
above
N.M.,
personal
His
matters....
(2)
character.”);
Report of
Bev-
Character
competent in
him most
question.
I have found
CA,
Hills,
year personal
erly
Jan.
matters.”).
legal
our
("[C]haracter
relationship
and fitness for
integri-
impeccable, as is his
practice of law is
(1)
Ange-
Atlanta, GA,
Los
P.S.,
were as follows:
(3)
Report
2. These sources
ty.");
Character
Center,
(2)
City College,
Justice
personal
les
year
and business rela-
Feb.
Court, (4)
(3)
Board of
great
States Tax
("He
young
the United
man
tionship
is a fine
w/a
E.K.,
Competence
Su-
of the
Attorneys]’]
(4)
Report
Professional
Los
personality.”);
Character
(noting
that Baker
CA,
employer
preme Court of Wisconsin
Angeles,
former
Jan.
and then
(“I
motion
applied
admission
years
had
have
known Baker for
who has
three
to meet the
integrity
withdrawn
and fine
to have
found the
(5)
law.");
requirement),
the Utah State
practice of
appropriate for the
character
S.Y.L.,
applied
take the Bar
(noting
Ange-
that Baker
(5)
Esq.,
Report
Los
Character
withdrawn), and
CA,
and then
les,
examination
an “of counsel”
Baker had
Feb.
(not-
Leasing Corp.
office,
Management
(“I
known
Southeast
relationship
with L.’s law
building which Baker's
ing
landlord,
it owned
found
and have
for over ten
Bob Baker
Ltd.,
"profile
leased
Law Offices
and of
the utmost moral character
him to be of
Baker).
integrity.”);
office” to
professional
very
finest
portion
report indicating difficulty
spouse
Question
application,
on his
obtaining
references
requests
regarding
information
verify
who could
there
applicant’s application, and/or admission to
and that Baker was not listed in Martin-
*3
jurisdictions.
other
the bars of
telephone
dale-Hubbell or the
di-
Atlanta
issue,
Concerning the
Baker
first
was
1983,
rectory during portions of 1981 and
asked
several members of the Commit-
raised concerns at the
that Bak-
Committee
Georgia
his
tee
the names of
clients.
requirements
er
not
had
satisfied the
girl
Baker stated that there were three: his
46(c)(3)(i),
which the
under-
Committee
friend,
King,
given
Pam
to whom he had
actively prac-
stood to be that Baker have
concerning
prep-
advice on one occasion
the
Georgia
years
in
ticed law
for the five
return,
personal
aration of her 1982
tax
preceding
application.
his
attorneys,
and two Atlanta
Kenneth Webb
The Committee asked Baker
attend
McCormack,3
he had
and Robert
whom
July
pursue
informal
1986 to
regarding
in an “of
served
counsel” role
the matter.
In connection with
hear-
this
He
problems
the tax
their clients.4
also
ing,
provide
Baker
Committee asked
attorneys
stated that he had served other
relating
Georgia prac-
documentation
to his
fashion;
Georgia
located outside
similar
tice, including copies of
C to his
Schedule
conducted
practice
he said that
was
through
Form 1040
for 1981
tax returns
phone.
over the
preceding
years
applica-
his
tion, showing
telephone expenses,
annual
inquiry
into
nature and
As
attorneys
and the
of clients or
who
names
Georgia
practice,
extent of Baker’s
could furnish the Committee with informa-
questioned Baker about his
Committee also
Georgia.
regarding
tion
his
during
years
telephone expenses
6, 1986, following a
On October
reminder
through
asked Bak-
1985. The Committee
Committee,
from the
Baker submitted
copies
complete
er to
of his
federal
submit
C
his tele-
regarding
Schedule
information
through
for 1981
and state tax returns
phone expenses
ques-
for the five
doing
so he could
1985. Baker asked if
Apparently, he
tion.
wrote
information
not relevant
to his
out information
block
Schedule C forms and submitted
blank
telephone expenses, and the Committee
Committee,
them to the
rather than submit-
request.
agreed
his
he had
ting copies of the actual
forms
issue,
Baker was
Regarding the
March
second
submitted
the IRS. On
response
it
why
informed Baker
that
he had indicated in his
asked
not
his
Question
would
unsuccessful
only
his first
attempt
pass
California
exami-
requested
hearing, pur-
a
Baker
formal
he
in fact taken
failed
nation when
had
46(f),
held on
to Rule
and one was
suant
explained
Baker
the exam sixteen times.
1987. Members of
June
question he
he understood
con-
questioned Baker on two main issues
in which he
being
to list each state
asked
and ex-
cerning
application:
his
the nature
each time
applied
re-
for the
and not
Georgia
and his
had
bar
tent of
Atlanta, GA,
Webb, Esq., also of
3.
Appendix
Points
Kenneth D.
to the Memorandum of
In the
Authorities Baker has filed with this
"TO WHOM IT
dated June
1987. It reads:
court.
attorneys.
delighted
includes letters from these two
to state that I
MAY
I am
CONCERN:
McCormack,
E.
III
is a letter from Robert
One
previ-
acquainted
Baker. He
am
with Robert
Atlanta, GA,
July
It
Esq., of
dated
ously
for the
maintained his office
May
It
Concern: I have been
reads: "To Whom
practicing
mine.”
suite of offices as
law the same
since
in the State of
my
acquainted
I have become
by saying
explained
dearth
clients
4. Baker
per-
be a
I believe him to
with Robert Baker.
great
experienced
a
deal of difficul-
had
intelligence,
high
keen
son of
legal
ty breaking
in Atlanta. He
into the
market
legal
By
of this
great
the date
and
letter,
acumen."
being
difficulty
opined
was due to his
that this
support
appears
it
written in
that was
an outsider or
non-southerner.
prior applications to Bars
of one of Baker’s
The second is
letter from
other than our own.
Report
ground,
within
done
to the first
deter-
each state he had
so.5
As
had
maintained an
mined that Baker
Following
hearing,
a let-
sent
practice in
Committee,
refusing
provide
ter
a continu-
that he had not maintained
copies
requested by
tax
forms
there.
to the second
ous residence
As
Noting
Committee.
had testified
only
ground,
Report
faulted
concerning
under
ex-
telephone
oath
candor in re-
for evasiveness
and lack of
penses
Georgia practice,
he asserted
inquiries,
but
sponding
the Committee’s
by requesting copies
of his
returns
noting
that he
failed
also because
questioning
veracity
Committee was
un-
*4
appli-
on his
the California bar examination
oath,
der
which
felt in turn was a direct
cation,
he had not
indicated
challenge
“religious
to his
convictions.”
than once.
failed the examination more
again
certify
The Committee
decided not to
application.
his
and
Baker filed a Memorandum of Points
opposition
to
Authorities
this court
with
8, 1988,
On March
the Committee
19,1988,
Report May
on
which included
Findings
presented
Report
its
Con-
of
and
containing a
of letters
Appendix
an
number
Moral
and Fitness to
clusions on
Character
attesting
persons
from
to his active mem-
Applicant
Practice Law of
Robert
bership
Georgia
Sep-
Bar.8 On
State
(“Report”)
Report,
to this court.
In its
from
tember
we received
brief
gave
grounds
two
for its refus-
reviewing
After
these doc-
the Committee.
certify
application:
al to
that he
Baker’s
uments,
to
we remanded the matter
prac-
engaged
in the
actively
had not
been
explanation of its
Committee for an
basis
tice
law for five
prior
appli-
his
to
of
46(c)(3)(i)
requiring
construing
Rule
as
Georgia,6
cation in
and
he had
actively practiced
applicant
an
to have
law
good
by his
demonstrated
moral character
jurisdiction,
opposed to hav-
respond-
and
in another
as
evasiveness
lack of candor in
inquiries
ing
to
an
of the bar of
the Committee’s
into his
been
active member
Baker,
re Robert
background.7
jurisdiction.
another
Question
application questionnaire
purpose
5.
12 of
of
to
whether or
determine
Georgia.”
you actually practiced
reads:
law in
every
you
state to
sub-
List
have ever
7. Id. at
exam,
application
mitted an
to be admitted
(or reinstated)
diploma privilege
or
motion
by Baker were
8. Some of the letters submitted
bar,
you subsequently
even if
withdrew
and, apparently,
dated 1985
were written
application.
application
For each
indicate
application
support
prior
to Bars other
his
the date it was
or
exam
submitted
the first
E.g.,
E.
than ours.
mack,
Letter of Robert McCor-
(admitted
disposition
its
taken and
ultimate
GA,
(“To
July
Esq.,
III
Atlanta
bar,
application,
withdrew
not admit-
or
practicing
May
I
been
Whom It
Concern:
ted). Explain any
applica-
withdrawals or
Georgia
my
since 1977. In
law
State
(other
tions or failures to be admitted
than
acquainted
I
with Robert
have become
(Em-
examination).
failing
due to
those
person
high
I
Baker.
believe him be
added.)
phasis
intelligence,
great
keen
moral
legal
Farris,
acumen.’’);
Beryl
B.
Atlan-
Letter
(“When
Report
at 1 n. 1
viewed
combina-
ta, GA,
(“TO:
July
State
RE:
Bar[.]
Utah
inability
unwillingness
tion
Mr.
or
with
Baker’s
Baker,
applicant!:.] Robert Baker
Robert
bar
supply
references who could
his
substantiate
Georgia
has been an active member of
having
in Geor-
maintained an
good standing of the State Bar
and a member in
gia,
Applicant’s lack of a client base in
Georgia
any
I
since 1980.
am unaware of
(Mr.
identify
Com-
Baker could
for the
impugn
his
which would
acts or events
only
one
client
had in
mittee
that he
legal competency.’’).
Other
moral character
practice),
is of the
the Committee
E.g.
letters bore
current dates.
Letter
more
opinion that Mr.
does not meet the re-
Atlanta, GA,
Webb, Esq.,
D.
June
Kenneth
(sic)
quirements for
under
admission
(“TO
am
WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I
46(c)(3)©.").
delighted
acquainted
that I am
to state
Further,
response
question
previously
He
maintained his
to a
from
Robert Baker.
rule,
purpose
Judge Kelly,
as
in the same suite
of this
office
Committee,
mine.’’).
Chairperson
“Well,
letters
him:
of offices as
Still other
advised
course,
community
purpose,
religious
familiar with
to determine
leaders
his
you practice
religious practices
or not
...
it is the
bore dates in 1988.
whether
his
[A]nd
3, 1989).
(April
No. 88-223
We
asked
strate
reason of
also
moral character
particular explanation
for a more
in re-
his evasiveness and lack
candor
denying
application.
reasons
Baker’s
sponding
inquiry
into
Report
The Committee filed a
of the Com-
deference
We must afford
(“Report
mittee on Admissions Remand
on
findings
Committee’s factual
Remand”),
explained
on
in which it
its con-
testimony
and lacked
was evasive
46(c)(3)(i),provided
struction of Rule
more
candor.
particulars
finding
regarding
that Baker
had failed
demonstrate
moral char-
A
acter,
again
ap-
refused to
plication, citing the
issue
moral character
ground.
Report
as its sole
Re-
In its
on
Initially, the Committee refused
certi-
subsequent
mand and in its
brief in this
fy
based in
on its
court,
re-
Committee abandons
interpretation
D.C.App.R.
question
liance Baker’s answer to
requiring
to demonstrate that
application concerning
attempt
*5
engaged
practice
he or
in the
of
she
active
obtain
in California.
admission
jurisdiction
in
another
for
five
II
years preceding
application.
her
In
his or
Remand,
Report
the Committee
its
on
begin
premise
We
fundamental
accept
reading,
again urges us
this
al-
1289,
Manville,
in In re
494 A.2d
stated
though stating
refusal to
the basis
its
is,
(D.C.1985),
ultimately,
1292
“[i]t
alleged
application
be
applicant
this court to decide whether an
failure to demonstrate
moral charac-
shall be admitted to
Bar of the District
practice of
pertains
as
to the
law.9
ter
decision,
reaching
In
this
Columbia.”
interpre-
conclude that the Committee’s
We
give
we
some measure of deference to
Rule
tation of the
is erroneous.
findings,
Committee’s factual
and we will
findings,
accept
unsupported
those
unless
plain language of the
begin with the
We
by
(citing
substantial evidence. Id. at 1293
46(c)(3)(i)
in
provides
Rule.
relevant
Rule
Heller,
401,
(D.C.) (per
A.2d
re
part:
curiam),
denied,
cert.
423 U.S.
96 S.Ct.
Any
requirements.
per-
Admissions
(1975)). However, we
with client- the Board’s handling regulations. All of fund these passing grade may ment seem of a 75 responsibilities designed are activities and came close harsh when state, ensure that members bar it by another that and was certified continually meaningfully engaged are duty general protect is Board’s legal profession. public unqualified physicians and pur- requirement rationally serves “bright general- As is true of line” rules pose”). standing” ly, “active member 46(c)(3)(i)is per- test in Rule contained Thus, perfection the constitutional is not may fect. result in the admission of It application of a yardstick judging qualifications are less candidates whose Rather, “bright rule. line” bar admission Likewise, may than exclude candi- ideal. bears a “ration- the test is whether the rule qualifications dates are otherwise whose fitness applicant’s al connection [an] Supreme exemplary. As the Court has Schware, su- law.” capacity or said: pra, at Fur- at 353 U.S. 77 S.Ct. some “reason the classification has [i]f standards, ther, applying permissible “in basis,” able it does not offend Consti appli- exclude an officers of a state cannot simply the classification tution because find- is for their cant there no basis when nicety “is with mathematical not made standards, these that he fails meet it results some because invidiously action discrimi- or when their inequality.” Lindsley v. Natural Car Hopkins, 118 U.S. Yick Wo v. natory. Cf. Co., bonic Gas S.Ct. U.S. [31 (1886)].” L.Ed. S.Ct. [6 (1911)]. L.Ed. “The Id. practical government are problems of 46 in 1983 avoid We amended Rule may they justify, ones if do myriad experienced between difficulties we rough illogi require, accommodations — *7 administering an “active 1973 and 1983 Metrop cal, may and it unscientific." 11, See note requirement. law” of Chicago, 228 City v. olis Theatre Co. supra. We replaced that test with 443, 441, 61, 57 L.Ed. U.S. 69-70 S.Ct. [33 We are satis- present “bright line” rule. (1913) statutory “A 730 discrimination ]. fied, hold, 46(c)(3)(i)(3)meets that Rule and if state of facts will not be set aside connection” test “rational reasonably may justify be conceived Schware.13 Maryland, v. 366 U.S. it.” McGowan 420, 1101, 1105, 6 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 426 [81 (1961)]. 393 B Williams, 485, 471, v. 397 U.S.
Dandridge
finding
1153, 1161-62,
turn now the Committee’s
683
46(d)
Examiners, 10 Cal.3d
requires
Rule
Bar
156,
15, 31,
178-79,
Cal.Rptr.
P.2d
110
514
gen-
must show
character and
moral
967,
(1973) (requirement
objective
983
eral fitness to
As we said in
law.
amici,
falsity). According to
omis
such
Manville,
previously
court has
not-
“[t]his
be of
misrepresentations
sions or
must also
‘good
that the term
moral character’ is
ed
magnitude to indicate a lack of
‘of broad
can be defined
dimension and ...
Bowen,
character, citing us to
In re
many ways.”
Al-
[citations omitted.]
658,
681, 683-84, 447 P.2d
659
84 Nev.
definition,
though
escapes precise
the term
(1968)
55
Martin-Trigona,
as In re
well
does, nevertheless, possess
core
307,
68,
301,
N.E.2d
71
Ill.2d
302
meaning. As
Frankfurter
Justice
stated:
and
(gross
required),
mischaraeterization
man that
com-
interests of
are
[A]ll
Examiners, 4
v.
Bar
Greene Committee of
prised
guaran-
under the constitutional
197-98,
24, 30,
189,
Cal.Rptr.
480
Cal.3d
“life, liberty
given
property”
tees
976,
(1971).
con-
Finally,
P.2d
amici
professional keeping
are in the
of law-
required,
intent to deceive is
tend
charged
yers
profession
....
From a
Gimbel,
citing us
271 Or.
Application
responsibilities
with such
there must be
810,
(1975) (per cu-
P.2d
truth-speaking,
those qualities
exacted
riam),
Exam-
v. Committee
Bar
Siegel
honor,
high
granite
of a
sense of
dis-
iners,
31,
supra,
Cal.Rptr. at
514 P.2d
cretion, of the strictest observance of
Bar
Lopez
at
v. Florida Bd.
have,
fiduciary
responsibility,
(Fla.1969).
Examiners, 231 So.2d
centuries,
throughout
compendi-
been
by contending
since
Amici conclude
ously described as “moral character.”
practice”
ir-
questions
“active
were
about
[citing Schware, supra,
to be and that, even defer Examiners v. satisfied citing Florida Bd. because we are (Fla.1978) (state- portion the Com Groot, ring credibility to 365 So.2d lacking in findings mittee’s that Baker was concerning payments, loan ment student in of his true), evasive certain context, and v. candor and was Siegel in was taken view, responses questions support to record refusing and to mittee’s does provide copies of the conclusion that Baker Schedule C forms he requested, lack of candor or evasive- filed between 1980 and demonstrated a matters; concerning these con- proving Baker satisfied ness his burden of trary, record demonstrates Baker moral character. supplied willingly freely and the Committee The Committee concluded remand enough his deny appli- information to that Baker had evinced and evasiveness ground on the that he had not main- cation (1) lack of in respects: candor two his in tained an active responses questions to the Committee’s years. concerning the extent and nature of his During hearing, Baker testi- formal Georgia, in and refusal fied that Geor- provide portions federal gia only Georgia clients. he had three Two tax claim returns substantiate his attorneys who had these clients were performed Georgia practice of his most sought tax advice from Baker on behalf of telephone. over the The client their own clients. third begin by noting that as of his We girl Baker’s friend to whom had application, produced six letters given regard- one some advice on occasion attorneys from know him others who preparation her tax return. attesting character. He complicated Barring unusually the most us, Appendix has also submitted to as an time-consuming problems, tax his Memorandum of Points and Authori- unlikely highly serving three clients ties, clergy bearing three letters from sim- five-year period constitute “ac- would attestations, ilar as well as letters from tive of law.” prior applications bars other Thus, going any further than without Further, nothing states. there is this, Committee had all it needed to a criminal record to indicate that Baker has deny Baker’s on the “active honesty or that he has ever had record light damning practice” ground. any school, integrity or called to account practice” evidence that free- “active bar, employer, state or court. Commit- Committee, ly willingly supplied to bring tee does not to our attention supply or failed to the fact that he refused past tending incident show its anything loses much of force. extra evasiveness, candor, dishonesty lack of part. on Baker’s All of the evidence relied points to Specifically, the Committee upon by the Committee stems from Baker’s inability to recall the name of his responding conduct the Committee landlord, present name of the married during investigation of his with whom he lived Atlanta woman Further, we note that which Counsel for then-girl during question —his argument: conceded at oral within Atlanta of friend—and the location significant speech Baker suffers from the street where he lived. The Committee impediment and testified at the provide points to Baker’s refusal also *9 counsel. alone and without benefit of copies he he of the Schedule C forms said part had filed as of his state and federal that in- The Committee contends during income tax returns Georgia practice quiries into Baker’s through 1985. inquiries were mate- responses to those application Momentary memory during because the lapses rial to Baker’s an pursued inquiries by questioners in the do Committee those examination five not a 46(c)(3)(i) finding that Rule re- for a of evasive- faith belief reasonable basis forget Surely, may one a de- quired Baker to show five active ness make. landlord, particu- tail the name of one’s practice. accept But if we like even Com- Likewise, expenses significantly spent telephone would add is clear that Baker the record Georgia. e.g., regard. See n. little of his time in this Thus, (B.B.F. letter). the tax returns re infra larly management requested by when the landlord is was in essence a company, casting without on one’s doubt We are satisfied that the tax redundant. Besides, credibility. pro- overall had necessary not have been information would vided name of his to the Com- landlord showing satisfy that Baker failed to a prior hearing part mittee to the of his as requirement.17 year active present application.15 As to the married girl friend, name a former there are Ill eminently good letting reasons for what reasons, foregoing we conclude For the may slip be an one’s uncomfortable fact re- that Robert Baker has satisfied the nothing mind at all to do with D.C. quirements admission under credibility.16 order that ad- App.R. he be alleged As to re- evasiveness District mitted to the Bar of the of Colum- garding the location of street where taking Appeals upon oath bia Court lived, speaks transcript for itself: 46(h). prescribed by D.C.App.R. as Q. Highway And where is lo- Buford It is so ordered. cated? well, A. It it’s—it isn’t in is— FERREN, Judge, concurring: Associate well, it’s in the town— main main— Q. opinion I for the What main town? As understand court, contrary first to the we Oh, A. it’s in the main of Atlan- town conclude— opinion Committee Admissions— ta, except actually it is not in the main— D.C.App.R. 46(c)(3)(i)no re- longer well, I explain can’t think of it. how applicant for admission to our quires is It not—it’s little bit on the outskirts to demonstrate bar without examination but not on the outskirts. it[’]s engaged she that he or has been reveals, This passage basically, the difficul- jurisdic- of law in another active ty describing the location of a street years immediately preced- for the five tion city within a to someone unfamiliar applicant has to city. may any- One station oneself only that has “an show he or she been likely Washington where on the Mall in standing” member in of the bar hear similar conversations tourists between jurisdiction year for that of another looking Georgetown and “natives” legal regard to how much period, without way work, their to and from even when actually practice the has conduct- speech those do not have Baker’s “natives” our ed in that state. We also conclude that impediment tendency digress. and his rule, interpreted, thus constitu- as Finally, tax there is the information re- tionally infirm. quested by the Committee. In view of Next, argu- for the sake of already provided during we assume evidence inquiry that the Committee’s into concerning the formal his “active ment practice” Georgia, of law in Geor- tax information extent of Baker’s Thus, shows, Committee.) seriously it cannot 15.As form in answer provided Question to landlord, of his trying keep any- 39 he the name maintained Baker was Limited, as the Law Offices as well thing failing to recall employees name of firm. As three already provided. information investigation applicants, of its routine into the National Conference of Bar Examiners give did name. 16. Baker the woman’s maiden two able to contact Baker’s landlord and obtain providing on his letters from them information reflection, that, after 17. We further note Furthermore, conduct a tenant. one of Bak- give purported faith version—"reli- *10 references, B.B.F., attorney er’s ing an in the build- gious supplying tax not convictions”—for office, "profile” where he maintained his originally agreed provide. information provided ad- information was We need not decide whether refusal claim; practice” namely, verse Baker’s “active justified we think on this basis because do not indicating "primary a letter that she believed any have made differ- actually the information would practice was in California where he (See resided.” October letter of B.B.F. ence. gia deference," was material to his admission In re mendation “some Man- —which (D.C.1985), good ville, under here the Committee’s faith A.2d I am understanding overriding mate- of the rule—was also troubled about Committee’s “good rial to the moral issue Baker’s candor conclusion that Baker lacked 46(d), though character” even under point that he failed to was evasive inquiry we hold the Committee’s itself carry prove good moral char- burden 46(e)(3)(i). legally was irrelevant under Rule The Committee observed Baker acter. occasions; per- our person on at least two Finally, although we defer the Com- transcript. ception is limited to a written findings mittee’s candor Baker lacked Furthermore, dissenting no there was vote questions and was evasive as to certain recommendation to Committee’s germane understanding tax returns deny to our bar. None- Baker admission Georgia, of law we conclude theless, having transcript of Bak- read a matter of that Baker satisfied times, I er’s formal several am proving good burden character prepared vote for his His admission. forthright because was honest and rambling, confusing responses sug- do not enough for the Committee to find rather lapses much as gest to me of character as easily actively practiced that he had not they inability to communi- reflect sheer (and years Georgia law for five because I that on this record we cate. am satisfied information). no negative there was other acting arbitrarily if we were would be words, waffling part other deny that “re- Baker admission—a decision inquiry legally insignificant when was committee, court,” mains for this not the compared to his candid admissions Id. “to make.” clear he could meet an active made not practice requirement.
I separately two write reasons.
First, hold, merely I would assume sake,
argument’s the Committee’s into Bak- inquiry faith the extent of
er’s practice was material of his moral character even
issue out, though, as it turned the extent MORRISON, Appellant, Carl irrele- Georgia practice legally v. vant to his admission to the District STATES, 46(c)(3)(i). The Appellee. Columbia bar under Rule UNITED rule, interpretation of Committee’s No. 86-990. concerns, on constitutional based Appeals. District of Columbia Court of frivolous or ill-intentioned. Under was not circumstances, I such believe we should Argued Nov. applicant’s an leave room for doubt: Aug. Decided lack of candor or evasiveness cannot merely question by excused because Admissions, asked in objection, turns out to be
faith without
legally situation would be irrelevant.
different, course, objected if question
and refused to answer a because expressly intent to test
of an stated require-
legality particular of a admissions
ment.
Second, accept we must Commit- because fact-finding supported by the record
tee recom- must afford