Document: 373 U.S. 96 83 S.Ct. 1175 10 L.Ed.2d 224 Nathan WILLNER, Petitioner,v.COMMITTEE ON CHARACTER AND FITNESS, etc. No. 140. Argued Feb. 21, 1963. Decided May 13, Henry Waldman, New York City, for petitioner. Daniel M. Cohen, respondent. Opinion of the Court by Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, announced BLACK. 1 Petitioner passed bar examinations in 1936 but has not yet been admitted to practice. The present case is latest a long series proceedings whereby he seeks admission. 2 Under law Appellate Division State Supreme each four Judicial Departments power admit applicants Bar. Once Board Bar Examiners certifies that an applicant examination (or dispensed with), shall him practice 'if it be satisfied such person possesses character and general fitness requisite attorney counsellor-at-law.' Judiciary Law, § 90(1)(a), McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. 30. 3 required Rule Rules Civil Practice appoint committee less than three practicing lawyers 'for purpose investigating fitness' applicants. 'Unless otherwise ordered appellate division, no practice' without favorable certificate from Committee. Ibid. Provision made submission Committee 'all information data justices.' If once applied admission failed obtain good fitness, must submit 'the written consent' renewal his application. 4 papers are 1(g) kept on file Office Clerk Division. 5 Appeals pursuant its rule-making authority (Judiciary 53(1)) promulgated Admission Attorneys Counsellors-at-Law, Law Appendix which provide, inter alia, every produce before 'evidence moral counsellor-at-law' (Rule VIII—1), justices adopt 'such additional rules ascertaining as may seem proper.' VIII—4. 6 petitioner application any 'additional rules' under Its Character Fitness consists members; Committee, we advised, published or provided procedure. 7 statute provides papers, records documents' 'shall sealed deemed private confidential,' except 'upon cause being shown, division * empowered, their discretion, order, permit divulged all part documents.' 90(10). And they make 'as deem necessary.' 8 But does appear have procedure served with order show denied nor other gives hearing prior court's adverse action.1 9 started petition Willner seeking leave de novo alleged following: had certified having 1936, 1938, after several hearings, filed determination was could 'certify In 1943 directing review 1938 determination. This motion opinion. 1948 again petitioned reexamination application, permission new permitted Upon filing conducted two hearings and, report 1950, refused certify second time. 1951 directing, furnish statements reasons refusal referee appointed hear question fitness. 1954 fourth requesting appeal, this certiorari. 348 955, 75 445, 99 L.Ed. 746. 1960 fifth Division, 11 further member standing Society Certified Public Accountants American Institute since Tax Treasury Department 1928. connection 1937 shown letter containing various about attorney; promised personal confrontation promise never kept. also involved litigation another lawyer who 'to destroy me'; secretary taking orders members were 'in cahoots' lawyer. 12 opinion appeal Appeals. thereupon sought affidavit support stated, 'I afforded opportunity confronting my accusers, accusers sworn cross-examining them, refuting accusations accusers.' granted obtained case. Willner, brief Appeals, argued constitutional rights that, spite repeated attempts, sure Committee's refusing oral argument, affirmed N.Y.2d 866, 227 N.Y.S.2d 682, 182 N.E.2d 288. Thereafter, at Willner's request, amended remittitur recite 13 'Upon herein there presented necessarily upon Constitution United States, viz.: Appellant contended due process violation Fifth Fourteenth Amendments Constitution. held appellant rights.' 14 We certiorari, 370 934, 82 1587, 805. 15 issue justiciable. 'A claim right state denial controversy.' re Summers, 325 561, 568, 65 1307, 1312, 89 1795. Moreover, requirements procedural met can exclude law. cannot occupation manner contravene Due Process Equal Protection Clause Amendment.' Schware v. Examiners, 353 232, 238—239, 77 752, 756, 796. As said Ex parte Garland, Wall. 333, 379, 18 366, 'a matter grace favor.' here concerned grounds justify license law, only what requires if withheld. problem Chief Taft adverted Goldsmith States 270 117, 46 215, 70 494, involving public accountant writing said: 16 'We think citizen laws state, within class those entitled board's rules, should rejected charges unfitness giving notice answer. adopted board provide discretion deny admission, suspend disbar person.' construed mean exercise exercised fair investigation, notice, answer would constitute process.' Id., p. 123, 217. 17 emphasized recent years often cross-examination whose word deprives livelihood. See Greene McElroy, 360 474, 492, 496—497, 79 1400, 1411, 1413, 1377, cases cited.2 That view taken courts when comes Coleman Watts, Fla., 81 So.2d 650; Application Burke, 87 Ariz. 336, 351 P.2d 169; Crum, 103 Or. 296, 204 P. 948; Moity Louisiana Ass'n, 239 La. 1081, 121 87. Cf. Brooks Laws, 92 U.S.App.D.C. 367, 208 F.2d 18, 33 (concurring opinion). need necessary conclusion situation this. supra; Cafeteria Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 367 886, 1743, 1230. result avoided ways. First, action merely advisory, investigator trier facts, 90 ultimately convinced applicant's character. '(u)nless Division' (New Practice, 1(d)), Division; where, here, own determine character, role more mere investigator. 19 Second, relief too late. did reject ground. Instead, stated 'necessarily' ruled 'presented.' conclude found 'unnecessary' pass some ground existed denying relief. Cincinnati P.B.S. & Packet Co. Bay, 200 179, 182, 26 208, 50 428; Lynumn Illinois, 372 528, 535—536, 917, 921, 922. 20 Third, record shows basis ex reached conclusion, whether informed allowed rebut bases either Division's failure find It stage these proceedings, ever apprised failing clearly rejection cf. Oliver, 333 257, 273, 68 499, 507, 682. There seems matters considering. 21 'But 'full hearing'—a open hearing—requires that. Those brought into contest Government quasijudicial proceeding aimed control activities fairly advised proposes heard proposals issues final command.' Morgan 304 1, 18—19, 58 773, 776, 1129. 22 ascertain reports gave separate hearing. Yet, '(t)he fairness exhausted consideration evidence, extend concluding parts well beginning intermediate steps.' 20, 777. Gonzales 407, 414, 409, 413, 467. 23 based decision violate process, hold erred earlier stated. because respondent asserted played decisions below, searched assess contention. complaints against intra-Committee memoranda contained fact rely complaints, least extent, reaching determinations. indication solely petitioner's statements. Thus, despite respondent's assurances statements, say decided. 24 25 Reversed. GOLDBERG, whom BRENNAN STEWART join, concurring. 27 I concur judgment believing, do, circumstances demands accorded bar. No conflict exists between requisites exaction highest standards 755—756, Certainly particularly sensitive of, special obligation respect, process. awareness, however, alter our essential function duty. reviewing area, others, look substance, bare form, minimums honored. 28 admissions procedures described characteristic prevalent throughout country. general, contemplate successfully will court-appointed conducts inquiry thereof recommends grant court. informal protection candidate, generally publicized. usually unpaid serve fulfillment profession officers They perform indispensable very thankless task. While vast majority candidates approved difficulty, exceptional cases, this, supplied himself material developed course committee's investigation rise questions concerning 29 context simply stated: applicant, denial, adequately nature evidence adequate evidence. understand Court, automatically required. remembered dealing, initial court trial, much qualifications limits incidents implicit concept 'fair' example, derogatory appears confirmed himself, undisputed documentary disclosed plain uncontradicted recommendation predicated thereon reasonably supported thereby, then neither procedures, ultimate recommendations, ruling sustaining properly challenged grounds, factual reply explain. Of course, depends particular reliability veracity afforded. Since courts, ample compel attendance witnesses 30 principles leads me Court's judgment. least, complex, muddled, many respects unsatisfactory. dealing first ago. Comparison applications facts later suggests lack complete candor committee. disclose, along recently occurring present, might elements indicate motivated certain informants, evaluation depend estimates credibility. clear actually requested confront cross-examine informants time late 1930's. plain, now considered untimely. point specifically finding precise original renewed requests reconsideration thereof. therefore, reaches us, confronted which, sifting, difficulties compounded susceptible reading given opinion—that constitutionally relied, part, contradicted informers credibility applicant. net me, case, whatever out be, become one orderly sorting articulated grounded merits claims are, am sure, effect proper remand. 31 HARLAN, CLARK joins, dissenting. 32 concurring opinions bear witness difficulty divining messy opaque truth presents substantial federal question. Obviously influenced considers membership persons unfavorable led refuse candidate's 'character fitness.' take great deal persuade experienced respected guilty questionable holding. light record, do believe Appeals' affirmance means points interpretation places reasonable, correct, gone before,1 entertain last admission—the eighth court—involved abuse Practice. More particularly, raised until 1954—some admission—during period already five times (note supra).2 34 So interpreting action, question—no so certiorari 1955, raising same almost denied. 35 Now plenary shed things affirded acted upon, dismiss writ improvidently granted. Jersey directed 1:20—6(a) following steps report: 'If believes fit satisfactory clerkship, promptly notify intention clerkship time, days, request fixed committee, appropriate it. place formal manner. A stenographic end official reporter county, assigned supervising purpose, prepare, compensation, transcripts transcript expense. findings conclusions court, copy An aggrieved may, relief.' 1:20—6(b) goes provide: 'The subject approval prescribe followed committees performance duties paragraph (a) rule.' 1230, where work isolated specific military installation' involved. 896, S.Ct., 1749. chronology events substance this: orginally 1938. Refusal certification appearance among things, interrogated received lawyers, Wieder Dempsey. (Wieder charged completed 'clerkship,' discharged Wieder's office unsatisfactory period. Dempsey's complaint related clients, fraud accountancy services performed client.) Apart charges, return questionnaire (1) connected offices, although interview employed Weider's short time; (2) 'no clerkship,' subsequently Albany; (3) disclose aforementioned suit client; (4) annulment 16-year-old wife, stating omitted 'Some people consider heinous offense'; (5) include six suits judgments listed questionnaire. characterized demeanor 'general evasiveness.' Although contemporary effort thereafter attack successive occasions during 1943—1951—all avail. Again, none here. Lack 1954, unsuccessfully moved Leave denied, turn Finally 1961 twice latter presently Court. initiating interviews Chairman confrontation.' discloses episode. Indeed third asked anything responded referring affidavits submitted behalf purporting refute charge supra). He confrontation.

Category: 3