Application of Ronwin
113 Ariz. 357, 1976 Ariz. LEXIS 314, 555 P.2d 315 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A bar applicant may be denied admission on the grounds of being mentally unable to practice law if they have a long-standing personality disorder that demonstrates an inability to interact appropriately with clients, other attorneys, and the courts, even if the disorder does not rise to the level of a formally categorized mental illness.
Facts:
- Edward Ronwin graduated from Arizona State University College of Law in January 1974.
- While a law student, Ronwin was the target of ethnic slurs and derogatory graffiti.
- In response, Ronwin publicly accused university administration officials, including the dean, of malice and deliberate nonfeasance, demanding some be dismissed.
- On two separate occasions during law school, Ronwin became enraged during academic discussions and made serious threats of physical violence toward two professors and their wives.
- Expert psychiatric testimony presented at a hearing indicated that Ronwin has a 'paranoid personality,' characterized by hypersensitivity, unwarranted suspicion, excessive self-importance, and a tendency to blame others.
- Before law school, Ronwin filed a reverse discrimination lawsuit against Fresno State College where he had been a lecturer.
- During law school, Ronwin filed a lawsuit against seven fellow students whom he believed were responsible for the harassment he endured.
Procedural Posture:
- Edward Ronwin failed the February 1974 Arizona bar examination.
- The Committee on Examinations and Admissions denied his petition to review the grading of his exam.
- The Arizona Supreme Court also denied a subsequent petition for review of the grading.
- Before Ronwin could retake the exam in July 1974, the Committee on Examinations and Admissions refused him permission, stating it was unable to find that he was mentally able to practice law.
- Ronwin filed a Petition for a Writ of Special Action with the Arizona Supreme Court, which declined to take jurisdiction.
- The Arizona Supreme Court appointed a Special Committee to conduct a formal hearing for the sole purpose of determining Ronwin's mental fitness.
- After a hearing, the seven-member Special Committee issued findings that Ronwin suffered from a personality disorder and concluded he should not be admitted to the bar.
- Ronwin filed a Petition for Review of the Committee's findings with the Arizona Supreme Court, bringing the case to its present posture.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an applicant's personality disorder, characterized by hypersensitivity, unwarranted suspicion, and an inability to handle conflict, render him 'mentally unable to engage in the active and continuous practice of law' under Arizona's bar admission rules?
Opinions:
Majority - Gordon, Justice.
Yes. An applicant's personality disorder can render him mentally unable to practice law. The court found sufficient evidence that Ronwin suffers from a 'paranoid personality' disorder, which manifests in an inability to maintain normal interpersonal relationships and to reasonably deal with conflict or criticism. This is evidenced by his serious threats of physical violence against professors. The court held that the requirement of being 'mentally able' to practice law excludes individuals whose long-standing personality traits demonstrate an 'obvious inability to get along with authority figures under situations of minor stress and conflict,' regardless of whether these traits constitute a formal medical diagnosis. While the court disagreed with the Committee's finding that Ronwin filed groundless lawsuits, holding they were brought in good faith, the overwhelming evidence of his personality disorder was sufficient to deny his application to protect the public and the profession.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the definition of 'mental fitness' required for bar admission, extending it beyond formal, medically recognized mental illnesses to include persistent, disruptive personality disorders. It grants state bar admission committees considerable discretion in evaluating an applicant's psychological temperament and interpersonal skills. The ruling establishes that a candidate's inability to handle stress, conflict, and authority can be sufficient grounds for disqualification, thereby emphasizing the bar's role in protecting the public from practitioners who cannot function effectively and temperately within the adversarial system. This precedent may raise concerns about the subjective nature of such evaluations and their potential to penalize non-conformist personalities.
