Opinion ID: 2453320
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Record Supports Approving Nash's Moral Character Application.

Text: Bar Rule 2, section 1(d), requires that every applicant to the Alaska Bar [b]e one whose conduct justifies the trust of clients, adversaries, courts and others with respect to the professional duties owed to them. The rule lists ten situations that trigger heightened scrutiny; three are relevant to Nash's application: (3) making of false statements under oath or affirmation, including omissions; (4) acts involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; . . . [and] (7) evidence of mental or emotional disorders.. . .[ [26] ] Assessing these situations, the following factors should be considered: (1) the applicant's age at the time of the conduct or condition; (2) the recency of the conduct or condition; (3) the reliability of the information concerning the conduct or condition; (4) the seriousness of the conduct or condition; (5) the circumstances surrounding the conduct or condition; (6) the cumulative effect of conduct, condition or information; (7) the evidence of stabilization or rehabilitation; (8) the applicant's positive social contribution since the conduct or condition; (9) the applicant's truthfulness in the admissions process; and (10) the materiality of any omissions or misrepresentations.[ [27] ] Based on these guidelines, we find that Nash has the moral character requisite to practice law in Alaska. We review below the relevant components of this decision, focusing on each of the three situations that trigger scrutiny according to Bar Rule 2, section 1(d). The first relevant situation is the making of false statements, including omissions. [28] There are two such allegations in the record, one alleging Nash was untruthful with answers about Jemez Springs, and the second contending Nash was untruthful in characterizing his departure from the priesthood. We discussed the first in depth above, and find no support for it. The second is likewise unsupported. Bishop Warfel alleged that Nash improperly characterized his departure from the priesthood as a resignation, when it should have been referred to as a dismissal. But the language Nash used was expressly authorized by a settlement agreement between him and the church and, when testifying, the bishop could not point to inconsistent language used by Nash. [29] Accordingly, we find that the record does not support finding against Nash based on the making of false statements. The second relevant situation raised in Bar Rule 2 is acts involving dishonesty. [30] This relates to the allegation that Nash destroyed documents. Although destruction of the documents was arguably proper in light of the requirement that they be destroyed, Nash testified that he did not destroy them, and accordingly we address the dispute concerning their destruction. The affidavit containing the allegation is hearsay, [31] on which a finding may not rest, per Bar Rule 7, section 4. Further, as discussed above, the affidavit is not supported by evidence in the record. Finally, the affidavit's persuasive force is weakened under factors set out in Bar Rule 2, including the reliability of the information containing the allegation and the absence of similar allegations. [32] As noted above, we ultimately conclude that the evidence does not support the affidavit's implication that Nash destroyed the files. [33] The third relevant situation concerns mental or emotional disorders. [34] The Board's decision implies that Nash was diagnosed with or treated for sexual disorders, which could be pertinent to Bar Rule 2, section 1(d)(7). However, there is no actual evidence of such a diagnosis. Nash testified that he was not diagnosed. Other evidence corroborates the assertion that Nash's time at Jemez Springs was not due to a specific diagnosis. And, importantly, a recent psychiatric exam of Nash found no evidence that he suffers from a psychiatric disorder, no evidence that he presents a risk of abusing minors or adults, and no evidence of other disorders or traits unbecoming a lawyer. Of course, there is additional evidence in the record, including an allegation that Nash sexually assaulted J.P. However, multiple tribunals have found those allegations unsupported or insufficient, [35] the Alaska prosecutor declined to prosecute Nash, and no court of law has tried Nash on the charge. The record does not contain evidence to support a finding of Nash's guilt, and we do not presume Nash to be guilty. There is evidence of inappropriate sexual conduct from the 1980s: Nash has admitted to the tickling, massages, and calisthenics imposed on youth on his trips. Nash has demonstrated contrition for those actions and apologized to those affected. Nash long ago vowed to change his behavior and there are no recent reports of any such activity. Both the Iowa Supreme Court [36] and the Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar Association have reviewed these allegations of misconduct, and neither found the conduct to warrant denying Nash's application. We agree, particularly in light of the factors from Bar Rule 2, section 1(d), including the recency of the conduct, the evidence of rehabilitation, and the applicant's truthfulness regarding the situation. [37] The record contains positive testimony from many individuals and 52 letters of recommendation supporting Nash's application. These are compelling letters, documenting knowledge of Nash from many perspectives and many points in his life. They recommend Nash as a trustworthy and compassionate person, and as someone possessing the requisite maturity and skills to serve this state as an attorney. This evidence is supported by a psychiatric report on Nash. Further, Nash appears to have been truthful in the application process as evidenced by his disclosures on the application form, his cooperation in having evidence discovered and compiling a robust record, and his candor in providing full information to his many recommenders. The record thus developed is abundant, spanning hundreds of pages. Despite the allegations discussed in depth abovewhich we find unsupportedthe record contains no confirmed instances of Nash lying, committing illegal acts, omitting information, or otherwise behaving dishonestly. Rather, the impression one is left with is of a man who has the support of those who have known and worked with him. It appears Nash had periods of difficulty in his life, but there is evidence of sincere remorse, reflection, and growth, and we do not find evidence of recent inappropriate acts or acts justifying denying Nash's application.