Application of Taylor
647 P.2d 462, 1982 Ore. LEXIS 964, 293 Or. 285 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An applicant for admission to the bar must demonstrate good moral character, and a court may examine the underlying conduct of past acts, including criminal charges ending in dismissal and the circumstances surrounding a legal bankruptcy, to determine an applicant's fitness to practice law.
Facts:
- In 1975, while employed and financially capable of managing his debts, the applicant filed for bankruptcy to discharge approximately $2,400 in student loans, stating he felt society owed him an education.
- While filing for bankruptcy, the applicant reaffirmed other debts for which creditors held security over property he wished to keep.
- In 1977, while he was a first-year law student, the applicant stole a shirt from a Salem department store.
- At his subsequent trial for theft, the applicant testified under oath that he had merely forgotten to pay for the shirt and did not intend to steal it.
- In 1980, the applicant admitted to the Board of Bar Examiners that his 1977 trial testimony was false and that he had, in fact, intended to steal the shirt.
Procedural Posture:
- The applicant passed the Oregon State Bar examination in 1980.
- The Board of Bar Examiners did not recommend the applicant for admission.
- The applicant petitioned for review, and a hearing was held before a trial board.
- The trial board recommended that the applicant be denied admission to the Bar.
- The Disciplinary Review Board adopted the trial board's recommendation.
- The applicant requested review by the Supreme Court of Oregon, the state's highest court.
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 for the Oregon State Bar possess the requisite good moral character for admission when he has committed theft, perjured himself in the resulting trial, and discharged his student loans in bankruptcy without compelling hardship?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. An applicant who has committed theft, perjury, and irresponsibly discharged financial obligations lacks the good moral character required for admission to the bar. The court's primary responsibility is to the public, and any significant doubt about an applicant's character must be resolved in favor of protecting the public. The court's reasoning focused on three areas: 1) Theft: The court held that the dismissal of the criminal charge does not preclude an inquiry into the underlying events. The applicant’s subsequent admission that he intended to steal the shirt proved he committed the act of theft, which reflects poorly on his character. 2) Perjury: The applicant's admission that he lied under oath at his theft trial establishes that he committed perjury. The court described perjury as one of the most serious offenses against the administration of justice, as it is a 'flagrant insult to the dignity of the court' and seeks to 'baffle the search for truth.' 3) Bankruptcy: While filing for bankruptcy is a legal right and not a per se bar to admission, the court found the circumstances surrounding it relevant to moral character. The applicant discharged his student loans not due to compelling hardship but out of a sense of entitlement, demonstrating a 'selfish exercise of legal rights and a disregard of moral responsibilities.' The court was not convinced of the applicant's reformation, noting that the acts occurred when he was an adult and a law student, and that his admission of perjury appeared to be motivated by fear of discovery rather than genuine remorse. His continued lack of candor left the court with unresolved doubts about his ethical character.
Analysis:
This case establishes that the 'good moral character' inquiry for bar admission is broad and permits a deep examination of an applicant's past, regardless of the legal outcomes of prior proceedings. It confirms that a dismissal or acquittal in a criminal case does not prevent a bar examining committee from investigating the underlying conduct to assess character. The decision also sets a precedent for scrutinizing the motivations behind legally permissible acts, like bankruptcy, to evaluate an applicant's sense of ethical responsibility. This serves as a significant warning to law students that their personal, financial, and ethical conduct is subject to review and can form an 'insuperable obstacle to admission' if it demonstrates a lack of honesty or integrity.
