Opinion ID: 2508592
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Character Evidence Evaluation

Text: Panel finding 28, [13] Petitioner notes, questions whether Petitioner's character witnesses were informed about all of the charges against him. Petitioner says that the panel did not exercise its ability to ask any questions ... of [his] witnesses to resolve... concerns or doubts ... concerning his good moral character. Petitioner asserts that the panel apparently completely disregarded ... favorable recommendations from long-time acquaintances that included [National Conference of Bar Examiners (]NCBE[)] letters of recommendation and letters from his in-laws, the grandparents of one of the complaining witnesses. The hearing panel's findings address only the testimony given by character witnesses called by Petitioner at the [January 27, 2004] hearing. The panel's findings do not specifically indicate whether the committee reviewed the NCBE character reports from the individuals Petitioner had listed in his application. The NCBE references were, presumably, reviewed before the Board first indicated that it would recommend denying Petitioner's application. Thus, it appears that any favorable character references did not outweigh the concerns that formed the basis of the Board's recommendation to deny the application. The hearing was Petitioner's opportunity to present additional character or other evidence, and he did so. The hearing panel's characterization of the live testimony is not necessarily a discounting of the previously submitted references; it is merely an indication of the weight the panel attributed to the live witnesses who Petitioner presented at the hearing. [14] A rational fact-finder could reach the conclusions reached by the hearing panel, i.e. that Petitioner's hearing witnesses had not known him long enough for their character testimony to be given much weight. Insofar as the lack of panel questions is concerned, the proceeding provided by RSCH Rule 1.3(d) [15] and HBBE §§ 2.5 [16] and 2.6 [17] is not generally an adversarial proceeding. The proceeding is held at the request of the applicant and is an opportunity for an applicant to meet the burden of proving good character. Although a hearing panel is authorized to inquire further, it is not mandated to do so. [18]