In Re Converse
258 Neb. 159, 602 N.W.2d 500 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state bar commission may deny admission to the bar based on an applicant's lack of good moral character, even if some of the conduct considered might be arguably protected by the First Amendment, if that conduct demonstrates a pattern of turbulence, intemperance, irresponsibility, and a propensity for personal attacks rather than peaceful dispute resolution, which is incompatible with the professional duties of an attorney.
Facts:
- Paul Raymond Converse engaged in a pattern of combative and unprofessional correspondence with law school administrators and faculty, including sending a letter with an inappropriate closing to Assistant Dean Diane May, and repeatedly writing letters and not filing formal appeals for a grade dispute, even sending letters to supreme court justices and federal judges.
- Converse publicly criticized and attempted to discredit law school faculty and administration by submitting a memo to classmates questioning a professor's professionalism, posting professors' salaries, and writing newspaper letters accusing Dean Barry Vickrey of dishonesty regarding a fee increase.
- Converse displayed a nude photograph in his study carrel in the USD law library, and after its removal, he alerted the ACLU and student newspaper, accusing the school of unconstitutional censorship, and later redisplayed the photo to force a constitutional issue, leading to complaints from other students.
- Converse filed an ethics complaint against Dean Vickrey, contacted the USD president to request Vickrey's firing, and disseminated allegations of health insurance fraud at the university to the student newspaper.
- Converse attempted to obtain an internship with the U.S. Attorney's office outside of law school procedures and, upon denial, complained broadly to faculty and state bar officials, calling Dean Vickrey "arrogant."
- Converse produced and marketed a T-shirt featuring a nude caricature of Dean Vickrey, which he admitted had sexual overtones and would be unacceptable for a lawyer.
- Prior to law school, Converse, as a landlord, sued a tenant for nonpayment of rent and referred to the tenant as a "fucking welfare bitch."
- Converse admitted to the Commission that he tends to personally attack individuals when he finds himself embroiled in controversy.
Procedural Posture:
- Paul Raymond Converse applied for permission to sit for the Nebraska bar examination.
- On June 29, 1998, the Nebraska State Bar Commission (Commission) notified Converse that it denied his application due to a lack of requisite moral character.
- On July 7, Converse filed an appeal of the Commission's initial determination.
- On September 15, the Commission held a hearing on Converse's appeal.
- On December 18, 1998, the Commission reaffirmed its initial determination, again denying Converse permission to sit for the bar examination.
- Converse appealed the Commission's adverse determination to the Supreme Court of Nebraska pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. for Adm. of Attys. 15 (rev. 1996), with Converse as the appellant and the Nebraska State Bar Commission as the appellee.
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 state bar commission violate an applicant's First Amendment or due process rights by denying admission to the bar based on a pattern of conduct and speech, some of which is arguably protected, that demonstrates a lack of the requisite good moral character and fitness to practice law?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, a state bar commission does not violate an applicant's First Amendment or due process rights by denying admission based on a pattern of conduct demonstrating a lack of good moral character, even if some conduct is arguably protected speech. The court affirmed the Commission's denial, holding that the Commission properly considered Converse's conduct, even if arguably First Amendment-protected, as it reflected on his moral character. Citing Konigsberg v. State Bar and Law Students Research Council v. Wadmond, the court reiterated that states have a valid governmental interest in making thorough character inquiries for bar applicants, and such inquiries are not prosecutions but investigations into fitness to practice law. The court emphasized that a bar applicant bears the burden of proving good moral character. Applying Nebraska Court Rule for Admission of Attorneys 3, the court found Converse's pattern of turbulence, intemperance, irresponsibility, and propensity for personal attacks, often resolved outside established legal channels, inconsistent with the required standards of honesty, integrity, trustworthiness, and respect for the law and profession. The court distinguished this case from a single incident of rudeness, highlighting Converse's consistent pattern of disruptive and hostile behavior, which is unacceptable for someone seeking to enter a profession "dedicated to the peaceful and reasoned settlement of disputes." The court also rejected Converse's due process claim, stating that a bar admission inquiry is not a trial requiring an all-inclusive list of "charges," but rather an investigation where the applicant is informed of the reasons for denial.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the broad authority of state bar admissions commissions to conduct thorough character and fitness reviews for prospective attorneys, even when such reviews involve speech or conduct arguably protected by the First Amendment. It establishes that while individual instances of speech may be protected, a pattern of behavior demonstrating a lack of professional judgment, civility, and adherence to established dispute resolution mechanisms can be a valid basis for denying bar admission. The decision emphasizes that the legal profession requires individuals dedicated to peaceful and reasoned dispute settlement, setting a high standard for conduct both inside and outside formal legal proceedings. This ruling serves as a strong precedent for denying admission to applicants whose past conduct suggests an inability to uphold the ethical and professional responsibilities inherent in the practice of law.
