Opinion ID: 2092153
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Ability to Abide by the Attorney's Oath

Text: Pursuant to Article II, Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules, [e]very person who is admitted as attorney and counselor at law shall take in open court the following engagement: `You solemnly swear that in the exercise of the office of attorney and counselor you will do no falsehood, nor consent to any being done; you will not wittingly or willingly promote, sue or cause to be sued any false or unlawful suit; or give aid, or consent to the same; you will delay no man's cause for lucre or malice; you will in all respects demean yourself as an attorney and counselor of this court and of all other courts before which you may practice uprightly and according to law, with fidelity as well to the court as to your client; and that you will support the constitution and laws of this state and the constitution and laws of the United States. So help you God.' Beginning in 1993 petitioner has published a number of articles  including articles as recent as 1998  that express explicit racial and ethnic bias as well as contempt and disdain for the federal government as a Zionist [O]ccupation [G]overnment. His 1993 article is entitled 100 Truths and One Lie and purports to establish that members of the black race are inferior to members of the white race. Excerpts from this work are set forth in the minority report. Moreover, as recently as 1998, Roots has written that he disavows the de[]facto regime of the United States government, its laws, and, apparently, its Constitution. Similarly, he has written in support of the bogus liens that the Freemen in Montana have attempted to place on federal officials who, in his opinion, have violated certain dictates that the Freemen espouse. It is noteworthy that Roots expressed these views in writing even while he was attending law school in 1998. Roots, however, now attempts to retreat from that stance. He would now have us believe that, consistent with the oath all prospective attorneys must take, he now can swear that he will support the constitution and the laws of this state as well as those of the federal government. This oath, as well as similar oaths that prospective attorneys across the United States must take, does not violate any individual constitutional right that Roots may have to express his contrary views. See Law Students Civil Rights Research Council, Inc. v. Wadmond, 401 U.S. 154, 161, 91 S.Ct. 720, 726, 27 L.Ed.2d 749, 757 (1971) (holding that the requirement that an attorney be able to take and abide by the oath to uphold the constitution and the laws of the United States is constitutional). At the same time, the United States Supreme Court has stated that [c]itizens have a right under our constitutional system to criticize government officials and agencies.    Government censorship can no more be reconciled with our national constitutional standard of freedom of speech and press when done in the guise of determining `moral character,' than if it should be attempted directly. Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 353 U.S. 252, 269, 77 S.Ct. 722, 731, 1 L.Ed.2d 810, 823 (1957). Thus, we have no intention or desire to censor or to punish Roots for his past or present political views or for exercising his rights of free speech. Nevertheless, when as here, a candidate for admission to the bar of a state has published writings that communicate his or her explicit refusal to accept our federal government as the legitimate government of this country, such a candidate raises legitimate questions about whether he or she in good faith can take and abide by the attorney's oath to support the laws and the constitution of the United States while in the exercise of the office of attorney and counselor. For example, if a candidate for admission to the bar were to express the view that, in his or her opinion, the laws and constitution of the United States were illegitimate and, for that reason, unsupportable, but that in the exercise of his or her office as an attorney or counselor, he or she still could and, therefore, would swear to support that constitution and those laws, then the committee and this Court would be entitled, we believe, to view that candidate's professed oath-taking ability with some degree of skepticism  especially if the candidate were a convicted felon with a history indicating a recurring lack of truthfulness and candor. While it is possible to draw and maintain a sharp line between a lawyer's personal beliefs and his or her professional conduct, a predictive assessment of a prospective lawyer's ability to take and abide by the attorney's oath is a fair subject for character review when considering an applicant for admission to the bar. Here, Roots bore the burden at all times to demonstrate his moral fitness and character to practice as a lawyer in this state. See S.Ct. R. Art. II, Rule 3(f). But his recent 1997-1998 publications and comments disavowing the legitimacy of our federal government  especially when considered in light of his criminal record and history of other misconduct indicating a lack of forthrightness and candor  give us pause in accepting his avowal to us that he can now in good faith take and abide by the requisite attorney's oath. Nevertheless, in reaching this conclusion, we agree with the majority of the committee that the First Amendment inhibits both the committee and this Court from denying membership in the bar to the petitioner because of his political beliefs and unorthodox political and social ideas. See In re Stolar, 401 U.S. 23, 91 S.Ct. 713, 27 L.Ed.2d 657 (1971); Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, 401 U.S. 1, 91 S.Ct. 702, 27 L.Ed.2d 639 (1971); Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 353 U.S. 252, 77 S.Ct. 722, 1 L.Ed.2d 810 (1957); Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of New Mexico, 353 U.S. 232, 77 S.Ct. 752, 1 L.Ed.2d 796 (1957). All of these cases related to applicants who either were or had been at one time members of the Communist Party or refused to answer questions relating to their membership in an organization (presumably the Communist Party) that advocated the violent overthrow of the government of the United States. We also recognize, as did the majority members of the committee, that neither a criminal record nor the political views of an applicant constitute an automatic bar to his or her admission. Yet both may be relevant in assessing (1) the applicant's candor, honesty, sincerity, and good faith in professing a willingness to take and abide by the requisite attorney's oath, and (2) the ability of the applicant, in the exercise of his or her office as an attorney and counselor, to support the constitution and laws of the United States. See Law Students Civil Rights Research Council Inc., 401 U.S. at 156, 91 S.Ct. at 723, 27 L.Ed.2d at 751; In re Converse, 258 Neb. 159, 602 N.W.2d 500, 506 ( 1999). The petitioner has stated to the committee and to this Court that he will not only take the attorney's oath if admitted to the bar, but that he will abide by it. He stated unequivocally under oath to this Court that he would not discriminate against any person for racial or ethnic reasons. He further stated that he would abide by the lawyer's oath in all respects without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. And he has stated to the committee that he no longer entertains his extremist views on the illegitimacy of the government of the United States. We are of the opinion, however, that the prior record of the petitioner  including his criminal past and the other conduct referenced above demonstrating his lack of candor and truthfulness  casts such doubt upon the sincerity of Roots's professed willingness to abide by the terms of the oath that he must take as a member of the bar of this state that his application should be denied at this time.