Pacheco v. State Bar
741 P.2d 1138, 43 Cal.3d 1041, 239 Cal. Rptr. 897 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An applicant for admission to the bar must demonstrate good moral character; however, the significance of past misconduct diminishes over time, and a showing of sustained exemplary conduct and rehabilitation, supported by credible character references, can outweigh aged prior misdeeds, even if the applicant does not perform an 'artificial act of contrition.'
Facts:
- Charles Anthony Pacheco graduated from Lincoln Law School in Sacramento in 1978 and passed the bar examination in 1980.
- Between 1969 and 1977, Pacheco was involved in several incidents, including counseling a murder witness on how to avoid a subpoena, improper collection and storage of evidence, inaccurate record-keeping, and suspect loan practices.
- In 1976, Pacheco divorced his wife, Carolyn, transferring the family residence to her and later securing a reduction in child support payments; however, they resumed cohabitation after a week and the property transfers were found to be neutral regarding moral character.
- In 1984, while working as a licensed private investigator, Pacheco was hired by attorney Michael Brady to assist a father in regaining custody of his infant child, who had been removed by the mother contrary to a Canadian court order.
- During the child custody retrieval, Pacheco and three other individuals, including the child's father, surrounded the mother’s attorney, Buckey, and the child; Buckey testified Pacheco restrained her arm, causing her to surrender the child, though Pacheco claimed only the father touched her.
- Pacheco was listed as an attorney in Parker’s Directory and other local directories after 1982, though he did not actively cause these listings and took some, albeit insufficient, steps to be delisted.
- Pacheco had practiced as a licensed private investigator for 10 years in California without a single charge of misconduct and had never been charged with or convicted of any crime.
- Pacheco submitted 20 letters from judges (5) and practicing attorneys (14), and one medical doctor, attesting to his intelligence, conscientiousness, honesty, high regard, and overcoming past deficiencies in moral character.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles Anthony Pacheco graduated from law school in 1978 and passed the bar examination in 1980.
- In 1982, the Committee of Bar Examiners of the State Bar (Committee) refused to certify Pacheco to the California Supreme Court for admission, finding he lacked good moral character.
- Pacheco unsuccessfully petitioned the California Supreme Court for review of the Committee’s 1982 decision not to certify him.
- In 1984, Pacheco reapplied for admission to practice law.
- In 1985, a hearing panel of the Committee was convened to investigate Pacheco’s moral character.
- In 1985, the hearing panel recommended that Pacheco not be certified, a recommendation that was restated in January 1986.
- Pacheco sought a hearing before the full Committee.
- In June 1986, the full Committee heard the matter.
- In August 1986, the Committee issued its findings and concluded Pacheco did not possess good moral character, refusing to certify him to the California Supreme Court.
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 Charles Anthony Pacheco, having demonstrated rehabilitation through exemplary conduct over an extended period and strong character references, meet the good moral character requirement for admission to the bar, despite past misconduct and a recent ethically questionable incident?
Opinions:
Majority - THE COURT
Yes, Charles Anthony Pacheco meets the good moral character requirement for admission to the bar, as he has demonstrated sufficient rehabilitation through exemplary conduct over an extended period and strong character references. The court found that the value of Pacheco's alleged misconduct, which primarily occurred before 1977, was significantly diminished by its age and the absence of similar, more recent misconduct. The Committee's focus on these decade-old incidents, especially after indicating rehabilitation would be the primary issue, was problematic. The court reasserted its independent review of the evidence, giving great weight to the numerous testimonials from attorneys and judges, even though Pacheco had not fully apprised them of the specific 1982 findings, as the witnesses reaffirmed their support after being informed of the prior issues during cross-examination. While Pacheco’s involvement in the 1984 child custody incident was ill-advised due to the risks of 'self-help' remedies, the court deemed it insufficient to demonstrate a lack of rehabilitation, especially considering it was directed by an attorney who faced no disciplinary action and involved a valid court order. The property transfers and directory listings were found to be either neutral or minor considerations. The court emphasized that rehabilitation is a 'state of mind' and looks favorably upon those who achieve 'reformation and regeneration,' which Pacheco had shown through his unblemished record as a private investigator, community involvement, and the consistent support of legal professionals. The court criticized the Committee for placing Pacheco in an unfair dilemma by re-questioning the facts underlying the 1982 findings and for failing to adequately address his claim of rehabilitation.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the standard for proving 'good moral character' for bar admission, particularly when an applicant has a history of prior misconduct. It establishes that the passage of time and subsequent exemplary conduct can outweigh dated misdeeds, placing a high value on credible character references from legal professionals. The ruling also reiterates that applicants should not be penalized for asserting innocence regarding prior charges rather than offering an 'artificial act of contrition,' thereby protecting an applicant's right to maintain their version of events. This precedent encourages rehabilitation and ensures that bar admission committees do not unduly rely on ancient history without considering an applicant's present moral fitness and transformation.
