Court Opinion

ID: 9544656
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:58:54.022469+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:13:22.281031
License: Public Domain

TRAYNOR, Acting C. J.
I dissent. The United States Supreme Court has determined that Konigsberg was denied due process of law and equal protection of the laws on the ground that “the evidence does not rationally support the only two grounds upon which the Committee relied in rejecting his application for admission to the California Bar.” (Konigsberg v. State Bar, 353 U.S. 252, 262 [77 S.Ct. 722, 1 L.Ed.2d 810].) In its words, “there is no evidence in the record which rationally justifies a finding that Konigsberg failed to establish his good moral character or failed to show that he did not advocate forceful overthrow of the Government. Without some authentic reliable evidence of unlawful or immoral actions reflecting adversely upon him, it is difficult to comprehend why the State Bar Committee rejected a man of Konigsberg’s background and character as morally unfit to practice law.” (353 U.S. at 273.)
It declined to determine whether Konigsberg could be ex*775cluded from practice solely because of his refusal to answer questions, stating:
“There is nothing in the California statutes, the California decisions, or even in the Rules of the Bar Committee, which has been called to our attention, that suggests that failure to answer a Bar Examiner’s inquiry is, ipso facto, a basis for excluding an applicant from the Bar, irrespective of how overwhelming is his showing of good character or loyalty or how flimsy are the suspicions of the Bar Examiners. Serious questions of elemental fairness would be raised if the Committee had excluded Konigsberg simply because he failed to answer questions without first explicitly warning him that he could be barred for this reason alone, even though his moral character and loyalty were unimpeachable, and then giving him a chance to comply. In our opinion, there is nothing in the record which indicates that the Committee, in a matter of such grave importance to Konigsberg, applied a brand new exclusionary rule to his application—all without telling him that it was doing so.
“If it were possible for us to say that the Board had barred Konigsberg solely because of his refusal to respond to its inquiries into his political associations and his opinions about matters of public interest, then we would be compelled to decide far-reaching and complex questions relating to freedom of speech, press and assembly. There is no justification for our straining to reach these difficult problems when the Board itself has not seen fit, at any time, to base its exclusion of Konigsberg on his failure to answer. If and when a State makes failure to answer a question an independent ground for exclusion from the Bar, then this Court, as the cases arise, will have to determine whether the exclusion is constitutionally permissible. We do not mean to intimate any view on that problem here nor do we mean to approve or disapprove Konigsberg’s refusal to answer the particular questions asked him.” (353 U.S. at 260, 262, footnotes omitted.)
The United States Supreme Court reversed the judgment of this court and remanded the case “for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.” (353 U.S. at 274.) In view of the questions expressly left undecided and the court’s remand, it is my opinion that this court is not foreclosed by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in this case from adopting and applying to Konigsberg a rule making *776failure to answer relevant questions with respect to his qualifications an independent ground for exclusion.
An applicant ordinarily has the burden of establishing his qualifications to practice law, and if he refuses to answer questions relevant to his qualifications, it is my opinion that this court is justified in denying him admission. Given the congressional and state legislative findings with regard to the Communist Party and the adjudications of guilt of its leaders of criminal advocacy, a question as to present or past membership in that party is relevant to the issue of possible criminal advocacy and hence to the applicant's qualifications.
Whatever its relevancy in a particular context, however, it is an extraordinary variant of the usual inquiry into crime, for the attendant burden of proof upon any one under question poses the immediate threat of prior restraint upon the free speech of all applicants. The possibility of inquiry into their speech, the heavy burden upon them to establish its innocence, and the evil repercussions of inquiry despite innocence, would constrain them to speak their minds so noncommittally that no one could ever mistake their innocuous words for advocacy. This grave danger to freedom of speech could be averted without loss to legitimate investigation by shifting the burden to the examiners. Confronted with a prima facie case, an applicant would then be obliged to rebut it.
Such a procedure is logically dictated by Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 [78 S.Ct. 1332, 1352, 2 L.Ed.2d 1460], The court there assumed that the state could deny a tax exemption to one whose advocacy of the unlawful overthrow of the government was such that it could be punished as a crime. Mindful of the risks to free speech, however, it took care to hold that the state could not compel the taxpayer to prove his right to an exemption and that therefore an oath as to his innocence of unlawful advocacy could not be required. There may be differences of degree in the public interest in the fitness of the applicants for tax exemption and for admission to the Bar. Even though the state may have more at stake in the latter situation, it is not therefore freer to endanger free speech needlessly.
Inquiry on the issue of advocacy of the unlawful overthrow of the government is a greedy camel; it does not easily take its leave. It has a way of moving on into the domain of lawful economic and political belief, speech, and activity. It bears noting that such advocacy, whether it carries erimi*777nal or civil sanctions, is unlike crimes whose elements readily set them apart from legitimate activity. (Cf., Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 [71 S.Ct. 857, 95 L.Ed. 1137], with Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 [77 S.Ct. 1064, 1 L.Ed.2d 1356].) It also bears noting that such advocacy is not invariably associated with even active membership in the Communist Party. (Yates v. United States, supra.)
Such considerations as these may have led to the result in Speiser v. Randall, supra, 357 U.S. 513. In contrast an applicant for public employment can be required to state whether or not he is or was a member of the Communist Party, as a condition of his employment. (Lerner v. Casey, 357 U.S. 468 [78 S.Ct. 1311, 2 L.Ed.2d 1423] ; Beilan v. Board of Public Education, 357 U.S. 399 [78 S.Ct. 1317, 1324, 2 L.Ed.2d 1414, 1433]; Steinmetz v. California State Board of Education, 44 Cal.2d 816, 823 [285 P.2d 617] ; Pockman v. Leonard, 39 Cal.2d 676, 685-687 [249 P.2d 267].) Since an attorney is neither a public employee nor a taxpayer seeking an exemption, we do not know how the United States Supreme Court would resolve the constitutional issue here. Still, it has emphasized the importance of an independent Bar, and it has declared that petitioner’s insistence on a constitutional right not to answer the questions here involved was not frivolous. (Konigsberg v. State Bar, 353 U.S. 252, 270, 273 [77 S.Ct. 722, 1 L.Ed.2d 810].)
We need not resolve the constitutional question, for the Legislature has not directed that section 6064.1 of the Business and Professions Code* be enforced by compelling applicants to answer all questions relevant to the proscribed advocacy, and significantly, it has not required declarations of nonadvocacy from members of the Bar. It rests solely with this court, in its supervision of admissions to the Bar, to determine whether petitioner must answer the questions in issue. The question is not whether the Legislature might constitutionally impose such requirements but whether this court should impose them. There is no good reason for the court to do so, particularly when the Legislature has made no attempt to impose them on practicing attorneys.
The United States Supreme Court has determined that Konigsberg established his good moral character and that *778he did not advocate unlawful overthrow of the government. In the subsequent hearing there was no additional evidence adverse to Konigsberg. The committee did no more than make clear to him that his failure to answer would be an independent ground for not certifying him to this court. Konigsberg chose to stand on his constitutional objections, and as the United States Supreme Court pointed out, there is “nothing in the record which indicates that his position was not taken in good faith.” (353 U.S. at 270.) If the committee had evidence that would support a finding of unlawful advocacy, it could compel Konigsberg to disclose political statements and associations in rebuttal or forego admission to the Bar. As the United States Supreme Court held, the committee made no prima facie case against Konigsberg, and we are bound by that holding. I would therefore grant the petition of Konigsberg and admit him to the Bar of this state.

“No person who advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of this State by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means, shall be certified to the Supreme Court for admission and a license to practice law.”