Seide v. Committee of Bar Examiners
264 Cal. Rptr. 361, 49 Cal. 3d 933, 782 P.2d 602 (1989)
Rule of Law:
An applicant for admission to the bar who has committed acts of moral turpitude bears the burden of demonstrating sufficient rehabilitation and present good moral character by clear and convincing evidence, especially when serious criminal conduct occurred while studying for the bar and while still on probation during the character and fitness proceedings.
Facts:
- In 1975, George N. Seide was arrested at his girlfriend’s house for possession of marijuana.
- From 1976 to 1979, George N. Seide attended law school.
- In 1978, George N. Seide was arrested at Miami International Airport when a suitcase he checked at a friend’s request was found to contain cocaine, and he testified he knew he was participating in a crime for compensation.
- In 1979, George N. Seide was arrested at Los Angeles International Airport for picking up a package containing marijuana on behalf of a friend.
- In 1981, George N. Seide and a partner entered into an 11-month extensive cocaine trafficking enterprise, participating in over 50 transactions, including 5 sales of more than a pound of cocaine, primarily motivated by financial gain.
- In 1982, police searched George N. Seide’s car following a traffic stop and found a small amount of cocaine.
- In September 1982, George N. Seide and his partner were arrested by undercover federal agents after selling them six pounds of cocaine.
- George N. Seide pleaded guilty and was convicted of knowingly and intentionally distributing cocaine, serving 147 days at a federal work camp, and his five-year probation terminated in September 1988.
Procedural Posture:
- In February 1987, the State Bar informed George N. Seide that he passed the bar examination but certification to practice law was withheld pending an investigation into his moral character.
- A three-member State Bar hearing panel held four days of hearings between October 1987 and January 1988 to investigate George N. Seide's moral character.
- Two members of the hearing panel found George N. Seide possessed good moral character and recommended he be admitted to practice law.
- One panel member dissented, remaining unconvinced of George N. Seide’s rehabilitation.
- The State Bar's Review Department adopted most of the panel's factual findings but reversed the panel’s conclusion, finding the evidence of rehabilitation unpersuasive, and unanimously (13-0 vote) refused to certify George N. Seide for admission.
- George N. Seide challenged the decision of the Review Department of the State Bar Court before 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 an applicant for admission to the California Bar, who engaged in extensive drug trafficking while in law school and was still on probation for those crimes during the character and fitness proceedings, demonstrate sufficient rehabilitation and present good moral character to warrant admission?
Opinions:
Majority - THE COURT.
No, George N. Seide did not demonstrate sufficient rehabilitation or present good moral character to warrant admission to the bar because the severity and timing of his criminal conduct, coupled with insufficient evidence of genuine remorse, acceptance of responsibility, and sustained reform, outweighed his evidence of rehabilitation. The court affirmed the Review Department's decision, emphasizing that when an applicant has committed acts of moral turpitude, they bear the burden of demonstrating rehabilitation and current moral fitness (Hightower v. State Bar; March v. Committee of Bar Examiners). This burden is higher than in disbarment proceedings (Hallinan v. Committee of Bar Examiners). The court found George N. Seide's extensive cocaine trafficking, much of which occurred while he was studying for the bar exam and after serving as a deputy sheriff trained in controlled substances, to be particularly egregious. His primary motivation was financial gain, which the court discounted as a mitigating factor. While acknowledging George N. Seide had made progress (marriage, stable job, staying out of prison), the court found this insufficient to establish a prima facie case of rehabilitation. It noted that merely "keeping out of trouble" while on probation is not enough; affirmative demonstration of sincere regret and rehabilitation over a prolonged period is required (In re Rohan). The character testimony from 33 witnesses, though laudatory, was viewed with skepticism because many witnesses were unaware of the extent and seriousness of his past drug dealing (In re Petty). Furthermore, George N. Seide's testimony that cocaine use and sale were socially less reprehensible in the early 1980s was interpreted as a failure to accept full responsibility and a lack of remorse (Nadrich v. State Bar; Segretti v. State; In re Cohen). His failure to seek ongoing psychological counseling or substance abuse assistance further suggested a reluctance to acknowledge the wrongfulness of his past transgressions, though the court clarified it does not require counseling (Hall v. Committee of Bar Examiners). The court also gave less weight to his "good conduct" because he was still on federal probation until September 1988, reasoning that exemplary conduct is expected of a probationer (In re Giddens). Distinguishing his case from In re Kreamer and In re Nadrich, which involved attorneys already admitted to the bar, the court reiterated that as an applicant, George N. Seide held the burden of proof, and there is no precedent for admitting an applicant with anything less than full status, meaning no immediate probation upon admission. The court concluded that George N. Seide needed to show continued exemplary conduct while unsupervised for a more persuasive showing of rehabilitation.
Analysis:
This case underscores the high burden placed on bar applicants with a history of serious moral turpitude, particularly criminal conduct, to demonstrate rehabilitation for admission to the legal profession in California. It clarifies that merely staying out of trouble, especially while on probation, is insufficient; applicants must show active, sustained, and genuine remorse, full acceptance of responsibility, and positive engagement beyond ordinary societal expectations. The court's skepticism towards character witnesses who are unaware of the full extent of past misconduct, and its emphasis on post-probationary conduct, sets a stringent standard for future applicants seeking to overcome a severe criminal history.
