Opinion ID: 2383775
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Dortch's Bar Applications

Text: In 1995 and 1996, Dortch passed bar examinations in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and West Virginia, and he applied for admission to the bar in all three jurisdictions. In so doing, Dortch fully disclosed his criminal convictions and the circumstances that gave rise to them. While Dortch took pains to emphasize on his application in the District of Columbia that I neither killed anyone nor was I at the scene where the homicide took place, he readily acknowledged that he had orchestrated a conspiracy to commit an armed robbery: My deep sense of obligation to my investors severely clouded my judgment. Obviously, I made the wrong decision, one which I shall regret for the rest of my life. I orchestrated a conspiracy to commit an armed robbery. Of course I now realize that regardless of motive, there is no right reason for doing the wrong thing. Morality is absolute and immutable and must not be compromised. Dortch added that he hoped to atone through public service: My decision to violate the law was totally out of character for me, and I shall not attempt to rationalize such a tragic error in judgment. I made a very serious mistake, and although the past is irrevocable, I am now committed to a lifetime of public service. Dortch also expressed his contrition in his live testimony before the Admissions Committee, which concluded that he appeared sincere in expressing remorse and in accepting responsibility for his criminal actions. Dortch marshaled an impressive array of strong character references in support of his application. The witnesses attesting to Dortch's rehabilitation and his fitness to practice law included his law school dean, several law professors, the law school's director of admissions, a former chair of the District of Columbia Board of Parole, a former parole examiner, a probation officer, a retired police captain, an assistant general counsel with the Metropolitan Police Department, the Executive Director of the National Black Police Association, the pastor of his church, a church deacon, and an Associate Director of the Council of Churches of Greater Washington. [4] The Admissions Committee held Dortch's application in abeyance pending the outcome of the Maryland and West Virginia proceedings. On January 6, 1997, the Court of Appeals of Maryland rejected Dortch's application as premature because he had not yet been released from parole. In re Dortch, 687 A.2d at 251. Observing that [a] person on parole is still serving a prison sentence, albeit, beyond the prison walls, Maryland's highest court held that it will not even entertain an application to admit a person to the practice of law when that person is still directly or indirectly serving a prison sentence for a crime so severe that disbarment would be clearly necessitated if the crime were committed by an attorney. Id. A few months later, on April 14, 1997, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia denied Dortch's application on its merits. In re Dortch, 199 W.Va. 571, 486 S.E.2d 311 (1997). The court acknowledge[d] Mr. Dortch's commendable prison record, his present dedication to community service and his extensive rehabilitative efforts during the seven years since his release from prison, as well as Dortch's candor in admitting his guilt and responsibility in the death of Officer Cobb. Id. at 321. Nonetheless, the court concluded, [t]hough Mr. Dortch may have demonstrated that he has been rehabilitated, ... the horrendous crime of which he was the prime conspirator outweighs his present good deeds. Id. On that basis, the highest court of West Virginia stated, [w]e firmly believe that it would be detrimental to the public interest and the public's confidence in the integrity of the legal profession were we to admit Mr. Dortch to the practice of law in this state. Id. (footnotes omitted). Following the decisions in Maryland and West Virginia, the Committee on Admissions in the District of Columbia took up Dortch's application. At the conclusion of three days of hearings in 1998, the Committee invited Dortch to submit a supplemental memorandum addressing the pertinence of the decisions of the Maryland and West Virginia courts. Dortch submitted a memorandum in which he argued that those decisions should not be followed because they adopted per se rules of exclusion that were inconsistent with the law of the District of Columbia. The Committee on Admissions issued its Report and Recommendation on October 15, 2001. Guided by our decisions holding that prior criminal convictions do not necessarily disqualify a bar applicant who has been rehabilitated, the Committee undertook to assess whether Dortch had established his good moral character and general fitness to practice law by clear and convincing evidence. Ultimately, the Admissions Committee was unanimous in concluding that Dortch had not met his burden of proof and in recommending that his application be denied. The seven-member Committee was divided, however, over the rationale for its conclusion and recommendation. Its division mirrored the different rationales espoused by the high courts of Maryland and West Virginia in their decisions denying admission to Dortch. A four member majority of the Committee joined in a statement of reasons drafted by Vice Chair Mark S. Carlin. These members in the majority found it difficult to distinguish Dortch's case from that of Daniel Manville, whose application for admission this Court granted despite his prior conviction for a comparably heinous homicide. See Manville II, 538 A.2d at 1130. Dortch's showing that he had rehabilitated himself was no less impressive, the majority found, than Manville's showing. Nonetheless, despite the similarity of the two cases, the Admissions Committee majority recommended that Dortch's application be denied on the basis of one key differencethe fact that Dortch, unlike Manville, is still on parole. In agreement with the holding of the Maryland Court of Appeals, the majority concluded that it would grievously undermine public confidence in our profession to admit an applicant who is on parole for such a crime as murder. As the majority explained: [W]e are obligated to consider our two principal goals: the protection of prospective clients and the assurance of the ethical, orderly, and efficient administration of justice. Manville I, 494 A.2d at 1298. We cannot fathom that we assure the public of the ethical, orderly, and efficient administration of justice by recommending admission of a convicted murderer on parole. In fact, we think that Dortch's admission while on parole could lead to public disrespect, opprobrium, and even ridicule of the Bar admissions process. Three members of the Admissions Committee embraced a different rationale for denying Dortch's application. In a statement of reasons authored by the Committee's Counsel, Alan H. Kent, these three concurring members acknowledged that Dortch presented substantial evidence of rehabilitation and even that he compared favorably to Manville in many respects. They pointed out, however, that Dortch has a higher burden of proof than Manville had: under former Rule 46, Manville needed only to prove that he was rehabilitated by a preponderance of the evidence, see Manville II, 538 A.2d at 1134 & 1134 n. 7, while under current Rule 46, Dortch must prove that he has the requisite character and fitness by clear and convincing evidence. D.C.App. R. 46(e). The concurrence also deemed apposite this Court's recognition that even under a preponderance standard, in the case of extremely damning misconduct, a showing of rehabilitation may be virtually impossible to make. 538 A.2d at 1134 n. 7 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The concurring members of the Admissions Committee concluded that Dortch's particular misconduct was so extremely damning that all the mitigating factors in his favor did not suffice to outweigh it. [5] That Dortch also is still on lifetime parole for his offenses only solidified the conclusion reached by these members that Dortch is unable to prove his good moral character and fitness to practice law by clear and convincing evidence at the present time. Upon receiving the Report and Recommendation of the Committee on Admissions, we issued an order directing Dortch to show cause why his application for admission to the Bar of this Court should not be rejected.