In the Matter of Applicant D
Review Department (2023) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 17
Overview
Applicant D sought review of a Hearing Department decision affirming the Committee of Bar Examiners’ adverse moral character determination. The Review Department affirmed, holding Applicant D failed to establish a prima facie showing of good moral character. Because the applicant did not meet the threshold showing at Phase 1, the court declined to recommend admission to practice law in California.
Legal Framework: Moral Character Proceedings
Admission requires certification by the Committee of Bar Examiners that the applicant satisfies admission requirements, including good moral character. The applicant bears the burden of proof.
Three-Phase Structure
| Phase | What Happens | Burden / Standard |
|---|---|---|
| Phase 1 | Applicant must present enough evidence to make a prima facie showing of good moral character. | Applicant’s initial burden (relatively low, but requires affirmative evidence). |
| Phase 2 | If prima facie showing is made, the Committee must rebut with evidence of bad moral character. | Clear and convincing evidence. |
| Phase 3 | If rebutted, burden shifts back to applicant to prove rehabilitation (or otherwise overcome the negative evidence). | Clear and convincing evidence. |
Applicant’s Evidence
1. Education & Employment
- College degree (B.S.) and law school degree (J.D.).
- Approximately 20 years of continuous employment (1980s through 2002).
- No employment for many years preceding the 2018 moral character application.
The Review Department explained that education alone is not affirmative evidence of good moral character. Stable employment may have some relevance, but where it is remote in time and the applicant has not worked in many years, it provides limited support for current good moral character.
2. Licenses & Security Clearance
- FAA aircraft mechanic license (inactive).
- Commercial pilot license (inactive).
- Real estate salesperson license (issued in nonworking status).
- Security clearance ending almost 20 years before the 2018 application.
The court found that inactive licenses and an old security clearance did not provide meaningful, current evidence of good moral character. The absence of regulatory violations, without more, did not satisfy the requirement of an affirmative showing.
3. Personal References
Applicant D listed personal references, including one attorney reference. However, none of the references provided letters affirming good moral character or testified at trial. The court emphasized that testimony or letters vouching for honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness is a hallmark of successful prima facie showings in moral character cases.
Key Holding
A prima facie case of good moral character is not established by default and is not proven merely by the absence of criminal convictions or moral turpitude. The applicant must present affirmative evidence demonstrating qualities such as honesty, candor, trustworthiness, respect for the law and judicial process, and respect for the rights of others.
Outcome
| Issue | Result |
|---|---|
| Prima Facie Showing | Not established |
| Recommendation | Admission denied (no recommendation for admission) |
Practice Takeaways
- Good moral character must be affirmatively proven; it is not presumed.
- Old employment/credentials may carry limited weight if not current.
- Letters and testimony supporting integrity and trustworthiness matter a lot at Phase 1.
- Failure at Phase 1 is outcome-determinative; the case ends without reaching rehabilitation.
East Bay Law P.C. represents applicants and attorneys in State Bar Court proceedings, including moral character matters and disciplinary defense.
Contact East Bay Law P.C.