Charles A. Nichols v. Board of Bar Examiners
895 N.W.2d 831, 375 Wis.2d 439, 2017 WI 55 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An applicant's academic misconduct and omissions on a bar application may be offset by sufficient positive character evidence, such as strong personal recommendations and evidence of remorse, warranting conditional admission to the bar. The state supreme court retains ultimate, de novo authority over bar admissions, even when the Board of Bar Examiners' contrary factual findings are not clearly erroneous.
Facts:
- In the fall of 2014, during his third year of law school, Charles A. Nichols submitted a research paper that contained extensive language copied verbatim from four published law review articles without citation.
- The law school found Nichols committed academic misconduct, giving him a failing grade and requiring him to take a course on academic integrity.
- In his final semester of law school, Nichols failed his Professional Responsibility course because he exceeded the maximum number of unexcused absences.
- On his application to law school, Nichols failed to disclose three prior underage drinking citations.
- On his subsequent bar application, Nichols failed to disclose a 2007 eviction case in which he was a named party, a 2008 restraining order he had obtained against a former girlfriend, and a 2009 dismissed citation for an absolute sobriety violation.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles A. Nichols submitted an application for admission to the Wisconsin bar pursuant to the diploma privilege.
- The Board of Bar Examiners (Board) conducted a character and fitness review, identifying academic misconduct and several omissions on his application.
- On April 11, 2016, the Board informed Nichols that his application was at risk of denial.
- The Board held a hearing on June 10, 2016, where Nichols and character witnesses testified.
- On August 4, 2016, the Board issued a final adverse decision, declining to certify Nichols for admission.
- Nichols sought review of the Board's decision in the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
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 a law school graduate's academic misconduct (plagiarism), coupled with multiple omissions on his bar and law school applications, demonstrate a lack of the requisite character and fitness for admission to the bar when offset by positive character references from an employer and the professor who reported the misconduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A law school graduate's academic misconduct and application omissions do not demonstrate a lack of requisite character and fitness when sufficient mitigating evidence exists. While acknowledging the Board of Bar Examiners' findings were not clearly erroneous and its concerns were reasonable, the court conducts a de novo review of the Board's legal conclusion. The court found that the applicant's conduct was sufficiently offset by positive character evidence, including strong recommendations from his employer and the professor who had reported the plagiarism. Citing the similar case of In re Bar Admission of Jarrett, the court gave the applicant the "benefit of the doubt," concluding that his careless omissions and single instance of academic misconduct did not outweigh the evidence of his good character and remorse. Therefore, the court reversed the Board's decision and granted conditional admission, requiring a two-year period of supervision by a practice monitor.
Concurring - Abrahamson, J.
This opinion does not directly answer the substantive issue. It concurs in the judgment and writes separately to provide context for a paragraph in the majority opinion ordering certain documents to be sealed. The concurrence explains that under court rule SCR 40.12, bar application files are confidential due to their highly personal nature, and clarifies that this rule is the reason materials submitted in this review were maintained under seal.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the court's ultimate, de novo authority over bar admissions, establishing that it can overrule the Board of Bar Examiners' legal conclusions even when the Board's underlying factual findings are upheld. It demonstrates a judicial willingness to look beyond serious, recent misconduct like plagiarism if there is compelling mitigating evidence, particularly strong character references from professionals familiar with the applicant. The case suggests a rehabilitative approach, favoring conditional admission with supervision over outright denial, thereby providing a pathway to the profession for applicants who have demonstrated poor judgment but also show significant potential for rehabilitation.
