Case Title: In Re Parker

Citation: 314 Or. 143, 838 P.2d 54

Docket Number: 

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 1992-08-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
838 P.2d 54 (1992)
314 Or. 143
In the Matter of the Application of Robert Roosevelt PARKER, Jr., for Admission to the Practice of Law in Oregon.
SC S38473.

Supreme Court of Oregon, In Banc.
Argued and Submitted May 5, 1992.
Decided August 20, 1992.
Reconsideration Denied November 24, 1992.
Leland R. Berger, of Rieke, Geil & Savage, P.C., Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for the applicant. With him on the brief were Forrest N. Rieke and Clary A. Hanmer, Certified Law Student, Portland.
Jeffrey D. Sapiro, Disciplinary Counsel, Lake Oswego, argued the cause and filed the brief for the Oregon State Bar.
PER CURIAM.
The Board of Bar Examiners (Board) recommends denial of applicant's request to be admitted to the practice of law in Oregon. Applicant seeks admission notwithstanding the Board's action. The case is before us for de novo review, ORS 9.536(3), ORS 9.539, and BR 10.6. The issue on review is whether applicant showed that he possesses the statutory qualifications required for admission to practice law. ORS 9.220(2) in part provides that an applicant must show that the applicant:
"(b) For purposes of this section * * *, the lack of `good moral character' may be established by reference to acts or conduct that reflect moral turpitude or to acts or conduct which would cause a reasonable person to have substantial doubts about the individual's honesty, fairness and respect for the rights of others and for the laws of the state and *55 the nation. The conduct or acts in question should be rationally connected to the applicant's fitness to practice law."[1]
After hearing, the Board found multiple reasons for not recommending the applicant for admission. One finding was that during a telephonic interview concerning a credit card application with SeaFirst Bank, applicant either impersonated his employer or was complicit with such an impersonation by a third person. The fact that such an impersonation occurred is not presently disputed. However, there was conflicting testimony about who did the impersonation and when.[2]
Applicant's co-worker testified:
"* * * * *
"* * * * *
"A. He said `you don't tell anybody about that. * * *'"
Renato Bermudez, who telephoned for SeaFirst Bank seeking employment information about applicant, testified as follows:
"A. It was a male. "* * * * *
Next, we set out applicant's testimony. Applicant indicated that there were two separate conversations involved (one in mid-February and one in mid-March) and that the co-worker misunderstood the conversation that she overheard.
Concerning the overheard conversation, applicant's testimony was as follows:
"A. I'm familiar with Mrs. Thomas's testimony on that issue. "* * * * *
"A. Right. "* * * * *
Concerning what applicant says was a separate conversation with Mr. Bermudez, the SeaFirst Bank's credit card authorizer, applicant testified:
"A. No, sir, I did not. "* * * * *
"And from my perspective if I say it was John and John says it wasn't me, then we have another screaming match whether it was John or whether it was me. And I have been through too much screaming matches with people. I'm notI just don't see it being in my benefit *57 to scream anymore." (Emphasis added.)
Senator Hill testified before the Board twice concerning those conversations with applicant. On the first occasion, he testified in part:
In Senator Hill's second round of testimony, the following transpired:
"A. That's right. "* * * * *
The foregoing testimony supports several comments bearing on applicant's credibility. First, what applicant told his employer about the conversation overheard by his co-worker is not consistent with what he told the Board under oath. He told the Board that the question that the co-worker heard him answer was, "who is the chairman of the committee?" He said the co-worker overheard him answer that the chairman was Jim Hill, Senator Hill. But he told Senator Hill that the question was one of who his boss was or for whom did he work. Senator Hill's testimony on this point was quite exact. He testified on repeated occasions that applicant told him that the question to which the answer overheard by the co-worker related was one of who employed Mr. Parker, not who was the chair of a committee.
Second, it is clear that the applicant failed to tell Senator Hill for over three years that anyone else impersonated the *58 Senator while in the committee office answering telephone questions concerning extension of credit to an employee of the legislature. His first omission was when Senator Hill himself conducted an investigation in 1987. Other government agencies also investigated. Applicant denied that he had impersonated Senator Hill. Applicant never disclosed anything about any third-party impersonation until some time in 1990, after Senator Hill advised applicant that this impersonation was the most damaging allegation against him, in the Senator's opinion. By applicant's own admission, he kept the fact of this potentially unlawful conduct a secret even though the subject of impersonating Senator Hill had been inquired about officially and repeatedly. When coupled with the denial of impersonation, this omission amounted to a misstatement of fact.
Applicant still keeps part of the information related to his version of an impersonation of his supervisor a secret, offering two explanations: first, that he is honor-bound to keep it a secret and, second, that if he did disclose who did the impersonating to obtain a credit card for applicant the impersonator would deny having done it, leading to another "`tis so," "`tis not" controversy. Neither explanation is consistent with the remainder of applicant's conduct concerning those whose interests have become adverse to his own. If honor's dictates are injected in the situation, it would appear that an equally strong command of loyalty to Senator Hill and the legislature would require disclosure that one long-time legislative employee was willing to and did impersonate a member in a telephone conversation having as its object to obtain credit from a financial institution.
We reject applicant's argument that the evidence associating him with an impersonation rises no further than a "mere suspicion." In addition, we find that the testimony of Ms. Thomas is credible and that the impersonating conversation that she recounts took place. It follows that applicant cannot prevail on this point, because it was his burden to convince us that the conversation did not occur as she recounted it.
When statutes regulating the practice of law and the admission by this court of persons to that practice were adopted in 1862, possession of good moral character was one requirement for admission, Deady Civil Code of 1862, § 1003; and conviction of a misdemeanor or felony involving moral turpitude was "conclusive" evidence justifying either removal or suspension by the Supreme Court after admission to practice, id. at § 1015. The moral turpitude standard for negating "good moral character" has since been enacted in the admission statute. ORS 9.220(2)(b) provides that:
A criminal prosecution or conviction is not a condition precedent to a decision to disqualify a person from the practice of law based on that person's dishonest conduct. Dishonesty demonstrating moral turpitude may be shown without a specific reference to a criminal law that might have been violated. However, the enactment of a criminal law on the subject, proscribing and punishing certain dishonest conduct, may establish that conduct of that character is of a sufficient nature and gravity to disqualify one from practice.[3] There is a statute dealing with impersonation of a "public servant" in Oregon. ORS 162.365 provides:
Definitions for ORS 162.365 are found in ORS 162.005, which provides in part:
There are no completely analogous impersonation cases on which to rely.[4] However, impersonation of another to obtain some economic gain has resulted in severe outcomes in a number of cases, including the following: In re Chambers, 292 Or. 670, 680-81, 642 P.2d 286 (1982) (the accused suspended for two years for impersonating an insurance agent); In re William Vann Cheek, 246 Or. 433, 425 P.2d 763 (1967) (the applicant denied admission because he signed name of president of company to two checks and lied about damages to a company automobile).
There are also some cases from other states denying admission for impersonations more directly related to the examination process. In In re Portnow, 253 App.Div. 395, 2 N.Y.S.2d 553, 554 (1938), the applicant took the bar examination "by impersonating the Portnow who was graduated at [Columbia Law]." He told the other Portnow about it. "[A]pplicant had admitted to him that he was endeavoring to impersonate him for the purpose of obtaining admittance to the Bar" Id. at 555. In In re Knight, 232 Ga. 721, 208 S.E.2d 820, 821 (1974), "the applicant freely admitted that he had contacted two out-of-state law students by telephone, then made a trip out of state and offered them $5,000 if they would successfully take the examination for him."
In State ex rel. v. McMenamin, 146 Or. 60, 65, 29 P.2d 520 (1934), the court quoted the rule that conduct of the sort that would justify disbarment would also prevent admission to the bar, stating:
"`Any member of the bar of this state shall be disbarred by the supreme court, upon proper proceedings for that purpose, whenever it shall appear to that court that his conduct has been such that if he were then applying for admission to the bar his application should be denied.'
"`"Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions." Matter of Rouss, [221 N.Y. [81], 84, 116 N.E. [782] (1917)]. The appellant was received into that ancient fellowship for something more than private gain.' People v. Culkin, 248 N.Y. 465 (162 N.E. 487)."
Having said that, the court disbarred McMenamin for dishonesty in borrowing money from a client. The dishonesty consisted of offering security that was inadequate but without disclosing the defects to the lending client, and keeping part of the money himself while causing the client, a widow, to believe that she was loaning all of it to a third party. No criminal prosecution was brought, but the McMenamin court did not require prosecution or conviction to support the disbarment. We agree that neither prosecution nor conviction is necessary to permit consideration of dishonest conduct of a person applying for admission.
This court has decided other cases involving moral turpitude. A person who continues to misstate facts about prior dishonest conduct that could constitute a crime and about his involvement in it, in order to gain admission to practice law, does not show himself to be a credible *60 person and does not establish that he has good moral character required to practice law. In re Fine, 303 Or. 314, 736 P.2d 183 (1987); see also In re Easton, 298 Or. 365, 372, 692 P.2d 592 (1984) (court noted that intentional conduct "to avoid a child support obligation" in a higher monthly amount was of concern when reviewing application for admission to practice); In re Taylor, 293 Or. 285, 647 P.2d 462 (1982) (admission denied based on perjury, theft, bankruptcy to avoid debt, and lack of reformation, quoting In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 555, 88 S. Ct. 1222, 1228, 20 L. Ed. 2d 117, 125 (1968) (White, J., concurring)). The admission statute requires that, to disqualify an applicant, conduct "should be rationally connected to the applicant's fitness to practice law." ORS 9.220(2). Lawyers must be honest. Truth-speaking is requisite in this profession. Applicant's dishonest conduct is related to the question of fitness to practice.
Applicant claims that rehabilitation has occurred after the time of any past disqualifying conduct. We do not find rehabilitation established where, as here, applicant continues to testify under oath in a manner that is contrary to the facts. See In re Jaffee, 311 Or. 159, 806 P.2d 685 (1991) (where the applicant had committed criminal acts related to marijuana, applicant would not be permitted to apply for admission until the passage of the same period of time as would have been the period of suspension for a lawyer in practice committing the same acts).
Admission to the Oregon State Bar denied.
[1]  Rules Regulating Admission 12.10(6) (formerly numbered 7.5) provides in part: "[A]n Applicant must establish by clear and convincing evidence that she or he has the requisite character and fitness to practice law."
[2]  Because disposition of the case is made on the impersonation issue, we do not reach other issues presented by charges of being in arrears in child support payments, intentionally incurring indebtedness without any ability to repay it, and dissimulation during a deposition about whether it was applicant's signature that appeared on certain documents evidencing debt.
[3]  The Oregon admission statute, ORS 9.220(2), requires, of course, that the disqualifying conduct "should be rationally connected to the applicant's fitness to practice law," thereby covering the same ground as did the Supreme Court of the United States in Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 239, 77 S. Ct. 752, 756, 1 L. Ed. 2d 796 (1957).
[4]  See Annot, Admission to BarMoral Character, 64 A.L.R.2d 30 (1957), and Annot, Falsehoods, Misrepresentations, Impersonations, and Other Irresponsible Conduct as Bearing on Requisite Good Moral Character for Admission to Bar, 30 A.L.R.4th 1020 (1984).