In Re Mustafa
1993 D.C. App. LEXIS 230, 1993 WL 359758, 631 A.2d 45 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An applicant for admission to the Bar who has committed serious financial misconduct that would constitute a disbarrable offense for a practicing attorney must demonstrate their present good moral character through clear and convincing evidence, which includes the passage of a sufficient period of time to prove rehabilitation.
Facts:
- While in his third year of law school, John W. Mustafa II served as co-chief justice of the moot court program, sharing control over its checking account with Larry Brennan.
- Between October 1990 and February 1991, Mustafa wrote thirteen checks on the account, converting approximately $3,510 to his personal use for expenses such as rent and his sister's bail.
- Mustafa concealed his actions by falsifying notations on check stubs and writing checks to reimburse himself for expenses already paid by the university.
- On June 14, 1991, Mustafa admitted to Brennan that he had taken $1,000 from the account and intended to repay it.
- After Brennan discovered the account balance was far lower than expected, Mustafa presented him with a cashier's check for $2,200 on June 25, 1991, making full restitution.
- On June 28, 1991, Brennan reported the misconduct to the law school dean; on the same day, Mustafa self-disclosed the misconduct to a law professor and to the Committee on Admissions.
Procedural Posture:
- John W. Mustafa II applied for admission to the Bar of the District of Columbia after passing the July 1991 Bar examination.
- His application was reviewed by the Committee on Admissions, which held a formal hearing regarding his misconduct in law school.
- Following the hearing, the Committee on Admissions found that Mustafa had converted funds but unanimously recommended that he be admitted to the Bar.
- The District of Columbia Court of Appeals then reviewed the Committee's recommendation for a final decision on Mustafa's admission.
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 converted funds entrusted to him during law school demonstrate the requisite good moral character for admission to the Bar when only a short period of time has elapsed since the misconduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Sullivan, Associate Judge
No. A bar applicant who converted funds entrusted to him during law school does not demonstrate the requisite good moral character for admission when only a short period has elapsed since the misconduct. The court reasoned that Mustafa's actions, which involved dishonesty and a breach of fiduciary duty, were serious enough that they would almost certainly result in the disbarment of a practicing attorney. A disbarred attorney would be ineligible for reinstatement for a minimum of five years. While this five-year period is not a strict rule for bar applicants, the court found that the 'relatively short period of time' since Mustafa's misconduct was insufficient to demonstrate that he had been rehabilitated and currently possessed the high moral character required for the legal profession. The court acknowledged Mustafa's positive actions since the events—including his candor, restitution, and strong references—but concluded that these were not enough to overcome the gravity of his past actions in such a short timeframe.
Analysis:
This case establishes that for bar applicants with a history of serious misconduct, the passage of time is a critical, independent factor in the good moral character assessment. It suggests an informal probationary period, analogous to the five-year waiting period for disbarred attorneys, before an applicant can sufficiently prove rehabilitation. The decision underscores the court's role as the ultimate arbiter of fitness to practice law, empowering it to override a favorable recommendation from an admissions committee if it deems an applicant's proof of reform premature. This precedent guides future bar admission cases by emphasizing that even complete restitution and sincere remorse may not be enough if the misconduct is recent.
