Court Opinion

ID: 9710898
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:19:54.040917+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:00.946597
License: Public Domain

PEDERSON, Justice
(dissenting).
The majority opinion is grounded upon two factors: (a) a judgment of disbarment or suspension reflects adversely upon the character of an attorney, and (b) it is this Court’s duty to the public to make sure, to the best of its ability, that all lawyers have a minimum competence to advise clients and represent them. Because Christianson has been out of the practice of law for the last seven years, the majority requires that he now take and pass the bar examination before he will be readmitted to the practice of law.
My concern involves three questions: (1) Are we obligating ourselves to establish a system for reexamining all lawyers who have been out of the practice for seven or more years; (2) Does the regular bar examination really test competence to advise clients and represent them; and (3) Does the adverse reflection upon character, arising out of a disciplinary proceeding, require more than evidence of good character and knowledge of the rules of professional responsibility?
I see much trouble for us and for the profession of law arising out of question number (1). There appears to be no easy solution.
Many scholars have reflected on question number (2). There is very little agreement as to the evaluation of something as undefinable as competence in the legal profession. A test designed to reflect the scholarship of a student may not reflect upon the intangible requirements of competence.
The third question appears to be the only one that can be responded to with any degree of" certainty. We should follow the practice adopted by the California Supreme Court in Segretti, cited in the majority opinion, and require Christianson, and all *415disbarred and suspended lawyers in the future, to submit to a reexamination of his knowledge and understanding of the requirements of professional rules of conduct.