Opinion ID: 1283206
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: analysis of the bar applicant's evidence

Text: Mailath argues his license under the Oklahoma State Board of Public Accountancy is proof that he possesses the good moral character required of bar applicants. We disagree. While that factor is necessary to qualify him as a certified public accountant, [23] his CPA status per se is irrelevant to the issue whether he is eligible for admission to the Bar. The answer to that question depends upon facts relevant to the applicant's personal and professional character. Thirteen witnesses testified on the bar applicant's behalf. Most of them knew him only as their accountant who did a good job. Two of his witnesses did invest in his business ventures. The first contributed $60,000.00 just before rental income from partnership properties fell drastically. The losses to that witness totalled $72,000.00 ($12,000.00 were paid to satisfy partnership tax and other liabilities). The witness attributed these misfortunes to poor economic conditions. The other witness who was involved with a Mailath enterprise was not a client of his. This witness alone testified that he believed Mailath committed no improper acts. The partnership in which he was involved purchased land from him for $230,000.00. He was also able to sell part of his interest to one of Mailath's clients. The remaining witnesses were all lawyers whose knowledge of the bar applicant was limited to the time they spent with him preparing his legal defenses in several lawsuits. [24] One of these witnesses would not even concede that Mailath owed one of his client-partners any fiduciary duties. As for the evidence showing he secretly collected finder's fees from vendors, the bar applicant explains that such compensation is commonly accepted by persons who put the transaction together. [25] Because Mailath's actions with respect to the partnerships and his clients took place several years ago, he argues that he has been rehabilitated and that only his present moral character should be considered. We do not agree. Evidence of an applicant's prior conduct may be considered in determining his ethical eligibility, so long as it is not unduly remote in time and hence reasonably relevant to show the present state of his character. [26] The record proof adduced against Mailath meets the requisite standards; it clearly proves his lack of ethical fitness at the time of his quest for admission. This bar applicant cannot be viewed as having been rehabilitated. He never acknowledged or conceded any of his conduct was improper. [27] Only once did Mailath obliquely express sympathy for all that his former clients and partners endured  he said he was sorry they fell victim to economic realities. [28]