Court Opinion

ID: 9855297
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:22:29.069583+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:36.340482
License: Public Domain

Badt, J.,
dissenting:
I dissent.
Although I concur in many of the things said in the majority opinion,1 I cannot reconcile myself to restricting this court’s reaction to a mere reprimand for his broadcast on television and for his failure to disclose the criminal charges that were pending against him in New *249York. It is true that both of these incidents occurred after the recommendations of the Board of Bar Examiners that admission to practice in Nevada be denied. However, we had given the board permission to file a further supplemental report. These matters then developed.
In his television broadcast he said: “I believe that I have been discriminated against, and that I am not being admitted to the bar here purely because of my race. It is not because of my qualifications or my inability or my character, as they say, but rather because they do not want a Negro to practice law in this state. In the 98 years that the State of Nevada has been in existence and so far as I have been able to gather, no Negro has ever been admitted to practice law in its courts. This is not just an accident. This is a contrived and a situation which, of course, can be eradicated and changed only by effort on the part of those who are being denied the opportunity to get their just constitutional rights.” Similar statements were made to the Board of Bar Examiners.
First, the statement is misleading with reference to the facts. Only one other Negro had sought admission in Nevada and he failed to pass the bar examination. Since the Kellar application, two Negroes have been admitted in Nevada after passing the 1964 bar examination. No other Negroes, except in the cases mentioned, have ever applied for permission to practice in this state. The same applies to applicants of any other race than Caucasians.
At the time Mr. Kellar broadcast his remarks on television a highly emotional situation existed throughout the United States in general and in Nevada in particular. Civil rights legislation or contemplated legislation was pending in the Congress and also in the state legislature. At the time the remarks were made there was pending in this court the applicant’s petition for a review of the recommendations of the Board of Bar Examiners. There can be but little doubt that the telecast had as its purpose the raising of social pressure on this court to reverse the action of the board. In oral argument we asked petitioner’s counsel if he thought *250that the telecast was a lawyer-like thing to do. The most counsel would admit was that “it was in poor taste.” In my opinion it was far worse than simply “in poor taste.” His statement, “I am not being admitted to the bar here purely because of my race * * * because they do not want a Negro to practice law in this state * * * no Negro has ever been admitted to practice in its courts * * *. This is not just an accident. This is a contrived * * * situation * * *” was not in effect directed simply to the Board of Bar Examiners. It was a broad wave of his arm which took in the Board of Bar Examiners, the state bar, and this court. (Emphasis supplied.)
The Board of Bar Examiners has often been referred to as an arm of the court. It comprises seven lawyers of high standing in this state. Their task in preparing the bar examinations and, in the case of application for admission by attorneys from foreign jurisdictions, carrying on extensive correspondence with the investigative arm of the National Conference of Bar Examiners, grading the examinations, conducting hearings, is an arduous and difficult one. It is undertaken without compensation. It is a tremendous drain upon the time of the members of the board. It sometimes results, as in the present case, in charges such as those made by Mr. Kellar. As the decision of the board in this case was unanimous, the charge is directed against every member of that board. As to the nature and extent of the character investigation, reference is made to an article by James B. Tippin, Jr., Executive Director, Florida Board of Bar Examiners, entitled “Technique of Character Investigation — Vigilance with Due Process,” published in 1963, Volume 32, Nos. 3-4, of “The Bar Examiner,” published by the National Conference of Bar Examiners, which is composed of members of law-examining boards and character committees. The article is too long to quote at length, but I may refer to the following part of the author’s address to the National Conference of Bar Examiners:
“Those of you who are in the unfortunate position of constantly being designated as respondents in the petitions filed by the disgruntled applicants are not unfamiliar, I am sure, with the applicants’ glossary which *251invariably includes such terms as ‘Kangaroo Court,’ ‘star chamber,’ ‘inquisition,’ ‘persecution,’ ‘oppression,’ ‘rumor,’ and ‘innuendo.’ ”
Nor can I overlook Mr. Kellar’s lack of candor in failing to report the criminal charges against him in New York. The majority opinion makes light of the criminal proceedings pending against Mr. Kellar apparently because the charge of “perjury in the second degree” and the charge of having “charged excessive rents” were both merely misdemeanors. I cannot treat them lightly. They both involve moral turpitude — the making of false affidavits of installation of improvements in the rented premises that would justify increased rentals. These amounted to $3,500 which he in behalf of his corporation (which had pleaded guilty) refunded to the tenants, whereupon the district attorney dismissed the charges. His corporation also paid a $1,000 fine. He reported these proceedings to the board when he must have known that the board had, or was about to receive, knowledge thereof. They were established by introduction of exemplified copies of the court records.
In Willner v. Committee on Character and Fitness, 373 U.S. 96, 83 S.Ct. 1175, 10 L.Ed.2d 224, cited by the majority opinion, reference is made to the concurring opinion by Justice Goldberg, in which Justices Brennan and Stewart joined. It was said: “* * * [W]hen the derogatory matter appears from information supplied or confirmed by the applicant himself, or is of an undisputed documentary character disclosed to the applicant, and it is plain and uncontradicted that the committee’s recommendation against admission is predicated thereon and reasonably supported thereby, then neither the committee’s informal procedures, its ultimate recommendations, nor a court ruling sustaining the committee’s conclusion may be properly challenged on due process grounds, provided the applicant has been informed of the factual basis of the conclusion and has been afforded an adequate opportunity to reply or explain. Of course, if the denial depends upon information supplied by a particular person whose reliability or veracity is brought into question by the applicant, confrontation and the right of cross-examination should be afforded.”
*252This dissent has nothing to do with due process.
I am in entire disagreement with that part of the majority opinion in which it is stated that the majority is not troubled about his [lack of] candidness in reporting the New York charges against him. I do not agree that “He did not shirk his responsibility to the people of the State of New York.” I do not agree with the majority’s statement as follows: “If he did this in concern with his application in this state he did not as an opportunist, forthwith report to this court.” This appears to me to be admission of his opportunism, which Webster defines as follows: “Art, policy, or practice of taking advantage, as in politics, of opportunities or circumstances, or, often of seeking immediate advantage with little regard for principles or ultimate consequences.” I thoroughly disagree with the majority’s following conclusion: “We, in decent respect to a man who meets his private obligations, write this down as a shrewd and in no manner dishonest appraisal of the complainant’s demand.” The majority also deems it important that he has not been disciplined by the bar of New York. He may yet be, if he returns to New York to practice.
I should add that there are places in the record of the hearing before the Board of Bar Examiners which sustain the contention that he was at times evasive and that his testimony is in some instances incredible.
Faced with the situation above outlined it is my conclusion, with due respect to the majority opinion, that the unfavorable recommendation of the Board of Bar Examiners should be followed and the applicant denied admission to the bar of this state.

Much space is devoted to a criticism of the practice of relying upon statements of witnesses whom the applicant has had no opportunity of confronting and cross-examining. I have no quarrel with the majority on this point. In default of actual presentation of these witnesses for cross-examination by the applicant we must continue to presume that despite the clouds of smoke, there is no fire.