Court Opinion

ID: 9669309
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:49:09.446299+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:55.352394
License: Public Domain

Andree Layton Roaf, Justice, concurring. The majority, in affirming the decision of the Board of Law Examiners denying the applicant’s admission to the Bar of Arkansas, has, in effect, upheld the Board’s findings that the applicant presently lacks good moral character. The Board found that Partin was not truthful regarding his involvement with marijuana in 1984 and 1986, and therefore did not demonstrate sufficient remorse or acceptance of the criminality of his actions. This court has correctly determined that the findings of fact by the Board are not clearly erroneous. It is also clear that the Board did acknowledge appellant’s commendable and apparently very successful efforts to rehabilitate himself since 1986; the consideration given these efforts is less clear. However, the Board flatly did not believe the applicant’s responses to its inquiries about his past acts in allegedly manufacturing or growing marijuana on a large scale, acts for which he was never convicted, in either 1984 or 1986. The Board, in effect, conducted a trial and convicted the applicant of charges which he did not face in 1984 and was acquitted of in 1986, to reach its conclusion. Unfortunately for the applicant, it was permissible and appropriate for the Board to conduct this inquisition, as even the applicant agreed: Mr. Mashburn: [D]o you view our job as being ended if we determine that all you had was a series of — one dismissal of a felony conviction and then a series of misdemeanor convictions or do you view that we should look at the pattern of activity particularly after you’re 30 years old and should have known better? Mr. Partin: I’m sure — yeah, I believe it should be considered. Mr. Mashburn: The pattern should be considered, shouldn’t it? Mr. Partin: Yes. The tenor of the questioning did not bode well for the applicant or for his chances before the Board: Mr. Mashburn: Let me just ask you this. You have a conviction in 1973 and then you have another conviction in 1984, were you growing dope all that time between 1973 and 1984 or did they just happen to catch you with the first patch you planted? (Emphasis added.) Mr. Partin: I’ve already told you that I wasn’t growing dope. Mr. Mashburn: You weren’t growing dope? Mr. Partin: No, sir. Mr. Mashburn: You’ve never grown dope — Mr. Partin: No. Mr. Partin wanted to be judged by his actions since 1986; the Board would not or could not let him put his past behind him and therein lies his dilemma. Although I cannot say that the Board was clearly erroneous in denying the application, if the decision ultimately turned on the applicant’s perceived lack of candor about alleged past criminal acts, then the issue of his rehabilitation has really not been reached. I find the anaylsis employed by the Supreme Court of California in a similar case to be more equitable while still fulfilling the duty of a Board or Committee to safeguard the integrity of the bar and the courts, and to protect the public against potentially dishonest or unethical practitioners. In Hightower v. State Bar of California, 34 Cal.3d 150, 666 P.2d 10 (1983), the Supreme Court stated the “fundamental question remains whether petitioner is a fit and proper person to be permitted to practice, and that question usually turns upon whether he has committed or is likely to continue to commit acts of moral turpitude.” In Hightower, the Court questioned “the wisdom of denying an applicant admission to the bar if that denial rests on the applicant’s choosing to assert his innocence regarding prior charges rather than acquiesce in a pragmatic confession.” Id.; see also Martin B. v. Comm. of Bar Exrs. of State Bar, 33 Cal.3d 717, 661 P. 2d 160 (1983). In the instant case, the prior charges are over eight years old and should be put to rest. I concur only because the standard for review is such that it cannot be overcome in this case. Ralph M. Washington, Special Associate Justice, joins in the concurrence.