Title: IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF CATHY HANUS TO TAKE THE IOWA BAR EXAMINATION, CATHY HANUS, Applicant.

State: iowa

Issuer: Iowa Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

No. 52 / 01-0001

Filed April 25, 2001

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF CATHY HANUS TO TAKE THE
IOWA BAR EXAMINATION,

CATHY HANUS,

Applicant. 

On review of the decision of the Iowa Board of Law Examiners.

Applicant to take bar examination petitions for supreme court review of order by board of law examiners denying her application.  ORDER OF LAW EXAMINERS AFFIRMED.

Cathy Hanus, Fremont, Nebraska, pro se.

Pamela Griebel and Cristina Kuhn, Assistant Attorneys General, for Iowa Board of Law Examiners.

Considered en banc.
PER CURIAM.
Our board of law examiners, appointed by us pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.10103 (1997), is charged with regulation of the admission to the bar. As a part of that process, the board investigates the character and fitness of bar applicants.  Ct. R. 108(a).  In this case, the board found the applicant, Cathy Hanus, had failed to carry her burden of proving she has a requisite character and fitness to be permitted to take the Iowa bar examination, and she appealed.  We affirm.
The burden to demonstrate the requisite characteristics is on the applicant. Court Rule 104 provides:  
	The board of law examiners and the clerk of this court shall prepare such forms as may be necessary for application for examination.  The application shall require the applicant to demonstrate the applicant is a person of honesty, integrity and trustworthiness, and one who appreciates and will adhere to the code of professional responsibility as adopted by the supreme court, together with such other information as the board and clerk determine necessary and proper.  
	In this case, the board appointed a hearing officer (a lawyer member of the board).  The hearing officer made his report, and the board unanimously voted to deny the application.  We are now at the stage where this court must make the final decision.  We review the record de novo.  In re Peterson, 439 N.W.2d 165, 166 (Iowa 1989).  The board contends the evidence adduced at the hearing falls short of establishing the applicant “is a person of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness” as required by rule 104, and we agree.  
	An applicant has no natural or constitutional right to practice law in this state; it is in the nature of a privilege or franchise.  Peterson, 439 N.W.2d at 166.  On the other hand, we cannot exclude an applicant for reasons that contravene constitutional due process or equal protection.  Id.  We believe the consideration accorded to this applicant comports with all applicable constitutional requirements, and the board’s order denying her application is well supported by the record.
	The respondent graduated from Creighton University Law School and applied for permission to take the bar examination in Nebraska.  She withdrew that application, however, and soon applied to take the bar examination in Iowa.  Her efforts in Iowa have been rebuffed at all levels.  Her problems in both states result from her failure to establish she is a person of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness, as required by our rules and those of Nebraska.  
	This applicant’s problems have been generated to a large extent by her husband’s two brushes with the law in Nebraska and this applicant’s involvement in the vexatious litigation that followed.  Details of those matters are set out in our opinion in the appeal of this applicant’s husband, Michael Hanus, also filed today.  In re Michael Hanus, ___ N.W.2d ___ (Iowa 2001).  On November 9, 1987, Michael Hanus was arrested for shoplifting a $3.99 socket wrench at a Sears store in Omaha.  He pled “no contest” to the charge but now contends he was innocent.  Hanus sued Sears for false arrest and negligence in failing to train or adequately supervise its personnel.  He also sued Sears for conspiracy to batter and slander.  Hanus’s wife, this applicant, alleged claims against Sears and its employees for loss of consortium, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and other claims.  In all, the couple filed four separate claims.  
	The Sears lawsuits failed, and the Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed.  The court of appeals characterized the Hanuses’ case as involving a “massive” record, eighteen volumes of 250 to 300 pages each, and a transcript of pleadings exceeding 430 pages.  The court found the suits were meritless.  It further found that an attempt by the applicant and her husband to recuse the trial judge was spurious, and their charges against the judge were unfounded.  The court, moreover, found the Hanuses’ accusations against Sears’ attorney to be unsubstantiated and that there was “no believable evidence in the record” to support their charges of misconduct against the defense lawyer.  The Sears litigation spanned almost eight years.
	The lawyer for Sears, Robert Peterson, testified at the hearing on the Hanuses’ application that he had viewed a videotape of Michael Hanus stealing the socket set, being escorted to the Sears security office, and bolting from the office with a security officer in pursuit, yet this applicant and her husband denied the event.  Peterson expressed the opinion that this applicant’s integrity is insufficient to allow her to practice law.  He claimed the Hanuses made misrepresentations in motions, backdated a motion for summary judgment, and failed to comply with various court orders resulting in sanctions and ultimate dismissal.  
	Michael Hanus was arrested for another offense, again giving rise to protracted and vexatious litigation by him and this applicant.  Michael Hanus was stopped on February 20, 1993, for not having proper license plates.  The litigation spawned by the traffic citation lasted over six years, and this applicant was a part of the litigation throughout.  He demanded a jury trial, and the jury found him guilty.  According to the trial judge, Cathy Hanus lied on behalf of her husband by testifying the car he was driving was not the one identified by the arresting officer.  The parties filed a motion for new trial, which was denied, and they then appealed the conviction and lost.
	Daniel Beckwith, a Nebraska district court judge, testified that Cathy Hanus demonstrated “a lack of sensitivity and appreciation for the legal process or the judiciary.”  He testified that, although he had written a letter of recommendation for Cathy Hanus to be admitted to law school in 1992, he has changed his opinion about her.  He testified he would not write a letter for her in support of her application to take the Nebraska bar.
	This applicant was denied permission to take the bar examination in Nebraska in July 1998, based on the Nebraska State Bar Commission’s conclusion that she lacks “the necessary character and fitness for admission.”  The commission stated, in addressing her application:  
	The Commission also finds that you lacked candor in the admissions process.  In your application, you did not provide complete information or pertinent copies of court proceedings and decisions in various cases or appeals in which you were a party.  Much of this various litigation material had to be independently obtained by the Commission in order to be reviewed and properly evaluate your application.  
	Further, it appears the Sears Roebuck case involved violations of court orders by you and that this case and other litigation in which you have been involved as the complaining party may have constituted abuses of legal process, including the filing of vexatious lawsuits.  
	Although the applicant contends we should not consider the Nebraska proceedings, we disagree.  Our rules are quite broad; under Court Rule 108(a), our board of law examiners “may procure the services of any bar association, agency, organization, or individual qualified to make a moral character or fitness report.”  We believe that the Nebraska State Bar Commission is “qualified to make a moral character or fitness report” under this rule, and we give its assessment of the applicant considerable weight.  
	We conclude that Cathy Hanus has failed to establish the necessary honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness to be permitted to take the Iowa bar examination.  We therefore affirm the order of the board of law examiners.
	ORDER OF LAW EXAMINERS AFFIRMED.  
	This opinion shall not be published.