In Re Wright
690 P.2d 1134, 102 Wash.2d 855 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The state's highest court possesses the inherent power to deny admission to the bar, independent of the Bar Association's recommendation, when an applicant's history of serious felonies and demonstrated lack of understanding of the legal profession indicate they do not possess the requisite good moral character and fitness to practice law.
Facts:
- In 1973, while a law student, Jimi T. Wright was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder.
- While his murder conviction was on appeal in 1974, Wright was charged with possession of heroin and pleaded guilty.
- Wright served approximately 3 years and 8 months in prison for the murder and 1 year in jail for the drug possession conviction.
- After his release, Wright returned to law school and completed his degree.
- After graduating, Wright, for a fee, advised two business owners on whether to incorporate and drafted articles of incorporation for them.
- In his application materials, Wright characterized his past convictions as not involving dishonesty or a breach of fiduciary duty.
- During a hearing before the Board of Governors, Wright did not express remorse for the murder, characterizing the act as "bad judgment."
Procedural Posture:
- Jimi T. Wright applied for admission to the Washington State Bar Association after graduating from law school and passing the bar examination.
- The Board of Governors of the Bar Association held several hearings to review Wright's application and moral character.
- Following the hearings, the Board of Governors recommended by a 6-to-1 vote that Wright be admitted to the bar.
- The Washington Supreme Court reviewed the Board's recommendation and initially issued an order denying Wright's admission.
- Wright petitioned the Supreme Court for reconsideration of its decision on the merits and for clarification of his status for future applications.
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's history of felony convictions for second-degree murder and heroin possession, combined with a lack of remorse and subsequent engagement in the unauthorized practice of law, demonstrate a lack of good moral character sufficient to deny admission, despite evidence of rehabilitation and a favorable recommendation from the Board of Governors?
Opinions:
Majority - Brachtenbach, J.
Yes. A bar applicant's history of serious felony convictions and subsequent conduct demonstrates a lack of good moral character sufficient to deny admission. The court possesses inherent power, independent of the Board of Governors, to determine who is qualified to be admitted to the bar. The requirement of good moral character includes honesty, fairness, and respect for the law and the rights of others. The taking of a human life under circumstances amounting to second-degree murder does not exhibit good moral character. The court was particularly troubled by Wright's lack of remorse, characterizing the murder as mere "bad judgment." This, combined with his subsequent felony drug conviction and his unauthorized practice of law—advising clients on incorporation and drafting documents for a fee without recognizing it as legal practice—demonstrates he is not qualified for the profession despite his efforts at rehabilitation.
Dissenting - Williams, C.J.
No. A bar applicant's past felony convictions should not preclude admission when there is overwhelming evidence of rehabilitation, a demonstrated commitment to the community, and extensive support from credible sources. The majority disregards Wright's compelling history of overcoming his past wrongs, evidenced by numerous letters of recommendation from professors, employers, police officers, and public officials, as well as the Board of Governors' favorable recommendation. The murder involved mitigating circumstances, and the heroin conviction was the result of a difficult choice to avoid being labeled a "snitch" in prison. The majority's focus on a minor incident of arguably unauthorized practice of law is misplaced and unfair. This denial effectively establishes a rule that a person convicted of a violent crime can never be truly rehabilitated, a premise with which the dissent strongly disagrees.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the state supreme court's ultimate authority over bar admissions, establishing that recommendations from the bar's governing board are purely advisory. It highlights that certain crimes, particularly violent felonies, may create an almost insurmountable barrier to demonstrating good moral character. The case serves as precedent that evidence of rehabilitation, while important, may not overcome the gravity of past offenses, especially when coupled with a perceived lack of remorse and a failure to comprehend the fundamental responsibilities and boundaries of the legal profession.
