In Re Gossage
23 Cal.4th 1080, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 130, 5 P.3d 186 (2000)
Rule of Law:
An applicant for admission to the State Bar who has committed serious crimes involving moral turpitude bears a heavy burden to demonstrate rehabilitation through a substantial period of exemplary conduct and full candor, and continued misconduct or material omissions on their application will prevent a finding of good moral character.
Facts:
- Eben Gossage's parents divorced when he and his sister Amy were small children, and around age 15, after his father died, Gossage began consuming alcohol and illicit drugs, becoming a daily heroin user by age 18.
- In 1973, Gossage stole, forged, and cashed several checks belonging to his mother, and then in 1974, he stole, forged, and cashed several checks belonging to his grandmother.
- On February 13, 1975, during a violent encounter at his sister Amy's home, Gossage repeatedly struck her in the head with a hammer, continued attacking her with scissors after she ceased resisting, fled the scene without rendering medical aid, and subsequently used deceit to conceal his guilt, which led to her death.
- Between 1978 and 1982, Gossage committed various acts including driving recklessly while drunk, driving under the influence twice, stealing jewelry from a family friend who had invited him to live in her home, possessing heroin, and impersonating a hotel guest to charge a watch to a room he had not rented.
- In June 1983, Gossage was released from prison, and by all accounts, became sober and remained sober thereafter.
- Between 1987 and 1993, while attending college and law school, Gossage drove with an expired license, bald tires, no commercial vehicle weight registration, no valid license in possession, no evidence of financial responsibility, and failed to properly transfer vehicle registration in various incidents.
- In January 1994, Gossage submitted an application for a moral character determination that omitted details of two felony forgery convictions, several misdemeanor drunk/reckless driving and public intoxication convictions, and eight misdemeanor convictions related to his willful failure to appear in court or pay fines for traffic violations.
Procedural Posture:
- Eben Gossage applied to the Committee of Bar Examiners of the State Bar (Committee) for a moral character determination.
- The Committee conducted a preliminary investigation and declined to certify Gossage for admission, based on his lack of good moral character.
- Gossage appealed this decision to the State Bar Court.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the hearing department of the State Bar Court recommended that Gossage be admitted to the practice of law.
- By a two-to-one vote, the review department of the State Bar Court adopted the hearing department’s decision, thus recommending Gossage's admission.
- The Committee then sought a writ of review from the Supreme Court of California.
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 Eben Gossage possess the requisite good moral character for admission to the State Bar, given his history of serious crimes involving moral turpitude, coupled with a pattern of recent misdemeanor convictions for willful disregard of court orders and material omissions on his bar application?
Opinions:
Majority - THE COURT
No, Eben Gossage does not possess the requisite good moral character for admission to the State Bar because he has not overcome the heavy burden of proving his own rehabilitation, as evidenced by his continued pattern of misconduct and material omissions on his application. The court independently reviewed the evidence, finding that the Review Department overlooked relevant considerations and made findings not supported by the record. The court established that the burden of proof for moral character and rehabilitation lies heavily on the applicant, especially when prior misconduct involves moral turpitude like voluntary manslaughter and forgery. While Gossage demonstrated recovery from substance abuse, academic achievement, and community involvement, these positive steps are significantly outweighed by his continued disregard for legal obligations. Specifically, the court highlighted: 1) The serious nature of past crimes: Voluntary manslaughter and multiple forgeries involve moral turpitude, requiring a compelling showing of reform. Gossage's actions during the manslaughter—continuing the attack after the threat ceased, failing to render aid, and concealing guilt—demonstrated a conscious and selfish disregard for the law. 2) Lack of exemplary conduct in rehabilitation period: The 'relevant time frame' for assessing rehabilitation (conduct outside of correctional supervision) showed continued lawbreaking. Between 1987 and 1993, Gossage accumulated numerous misdemeanor convictions for willful failures to appear in court and willful failures to pay fines related to traffic citations. This pattern, reminiscent of his earlier disregard for court orders, showed a habitual lack of respect for the judicial process, particularly egregious given he was a law student. The court rejected his excuses regarding unreceived notices, noting the 'willful' nature of the convictions and his own failure to ensure correct addresses. 3) Material omissions on Bar Application: Gossage's application contained significant omissions regarding his criminal history, including two felony forgery convictions and all eight misdemeanor Vehicle Code convictions. The court found his claims of faulty memory or misunderstanding implausible, concluding that these omissions created a materially false impression of his character and demonstrated a lack of the 'high degree of frankness and truthfulness' required. Such omissions, whether from intentional concealment or reckless disregard, constitute strong evidence against good moral character.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the stringent moral character requirements for admission to the State Bar, particularly for applicants with a history of serious offenses involving moral turpitude. It clarifies that rehabilitation requires not only abstaining from prior serious misconduct but also demonstrating a consistent and sustained respect for the law and the judicial process, free from any pattern of legal disregard. The ruling also emphasizes the critical importance of absolute candor and full disclosure in bar applications, highlighting that omissions, even if claimed unintentional, can be independently fatal to an application if they create a materially false impression. This case serves as a cautionary tale for aspiring lawyers, demonstrating that a long period of sobriety and positive community engagement may not be enough to overcome a pattern of disrespect for legal obligations and lack of candor.
