In Re Hamm
211 Ariz. 458, 123 P.3d 652, 2005 Ariz. LEXIS 130 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An applicant for the state bar who has committed an extremely serious crime, such as first-degree murder, must make an extraordinary showing of both rehabilitation and present good moral character. This burden is not met if the applicant demonstrates a lack of candor, fails to take full responsibility for past misconduct, or neglects fundamental personal obligations.
Facts:
- In 1974, James Hamm and two accomplices planned to rob Willard Morley and Zane Staples.
- During the planned robbery, Hamm, armed with a gun, shot Morley in the back of the head, killing him, without first making any demand for money.
- Hamm's accomplice, Garland Wells, shot Staples. As Staples tried to escape, Hamm shot him as well, and Wells ultimately killed him.
- Hamm and Wells stole $1400 from the victims' vehicle and fled the scene.
- After his arrest, Hamm initially lied to police, claiming the killings occurred during a gun battle.
- Hamm had a son from a prior marriage for whom he was ordered to pay child support in a 1974 divorce decree.
- For nearly thirty years, from 1974 until 2004, Hamm made no effort to pay this child support obligation.
- In 1996, while on parole, Hamm and his current wife were involved in a physical altercation to which police responded and questioned Hamm, an incident he did not report on his bar application.
Procedural Posture:
- James Hamm pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree murder in Arizona state court and was sentenced to life in prison.
- After serving nearly seventeen years, Hamm was released on parole in 1992.
- Hamm received an absolute discharge from parole in December 2001.
- Hamm passed the Arizona bar examination in 1999 and filed his Character and Fitness Report in 2004.
- The Committee on Character and Fitness held a formal hearing to consider Hamm's application.
- The Committee concluded Hamm had not met his burden of establishing good moral character and recommended that his application be denied.
- Hamm petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court, the state's highest court, to review the Committee's negative recommendation.
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 bar applicant who was convicted of first-degree murder possess the requisite good moral character for admission to the practice of law, despite extensive evidence of rehabilitation, when he has also failed to pay child support for thirty years, failed to disclose a police incident on his application, and demonstrated a lack of candor during the admissions process?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice McGregor
No. An applicant with a history of extremely damning past misconduct must make an extraordinary showing of present good moral character, which Hamm has failed to do. The court's reasoning rests on several key points. First, the more serious the past misconduct, the greater the burden to prove rehabilitation and present good moral character; first-degree murder represents the most serious misconduct. Second, while Hamm has demonstrated substantial rehabilitation, this is a necessary but not sufficient condition for admission. Third, Hamm failed to demonstrate present good moral character because he has not fully accepted responsibility for his crimes, particularly by minimizing his intent and his role in the second murder. His character is further undermined by his thirty-year failure to meet his child support obligation, his lack of candor regarding this failure, his omission of a 1996 police incident on his application, and his plagiarism of a Supreme Court opinion in his legal filings. These cumulative actions demonstrate that Hamm does not possess the requisite good moral character to practice law.
Analysis:
This case establishes an extremely high, if not nearly impossible, standard for bar applicants who have committed violent felonies like murder. It clarifies that rehabilitation, however extensive and sincere, cannot by itself overcome the character deficit created by such a crime. The court's decision emphasizes that present good moral character is an independent requirement that will be scrutinized through the applicant's recent conduct, including financial responsibility, honesty in the application process, and candor before the court. The ruling signals to bar admission committees that subsequent lapses in judgment or integrity, even if unrelated to the original crime, can be sufficient to deny admission to an applicant with a serious criminal history.
