Opinion ID: 6496173
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Applicant's Testimony Before the Committee

Text: During the hearing before the Committee, Applicant testified he did not inform the law school about his arrests for MIP and hindering police because he was under the impression they were off [his] record and they were expunged. Applicant admitted this was a mistake on his part because the law school application unambiguously required disclosure of expunged offenses. 3 Applicant also acknowledged that the law school gave him numerous reminders about the importance of disclosures, and he realized he needed to disclose those two offenses. However, Applicant testified he made the decision to disclose just the MIP and not the hindering police because [he] was certain as to what exactly the MIP was and [he] needed to get a little bit more information on the hindering police. Applicant acknowledged this was not a good excuse and that he should 3 Specifically, Applicant acknowledged the law school application directed disclosure of all instances including instances that have been expunged by order of the court, including juvenile offenses. have disclosed both at the same time. Applicant claimed he was very nervous and embarrassed as well. At the hearing, Applicant apologized for his failure to disclose these incidents to the law school when he applied. He stated he deeply regretted this failure and considered it an inexcusable mistake. Applicant assured the Committee that he took full responsibility for his mistakes and intended to learn from them. In considering Applicant's character and fitness to practice law, the Committee noted the relatively minor nature of Applicant's infractions, most of which occurred about a decade ago while Applicant was young. However, the Committee also acknowledged Applicant's failure to disclose these infractions in his law school application was both more recent and more troubling. The Committee noted Applicant accepted full responsibility for his prior misconduct and appeared genuine in his regret for failing to disclose the matters. Additionally, the Committee found Applicant's disclosure—albeit late in the process—of the fraternity prank as an undergraduate student demonstrated a sincere attempt to be completely candid with the Committee regarding his past misdeeds. In considering the totality of the information available, the Committee ultimately concluded Applicant possesses the requisite character and fitness to practice law.