Can past misdemeanors block bar admission? (Washington No. 201997-8)

Have you ever felt that past mistakes, no matter how distant, could unjustly hinder your career aspirations? You're not alone—many individuals face similar challenges, especially when it comes to professional licensing and background checks. Fortunately, a recent court case involving the bar application of Zachary Leroy Stevens in Washington provides a precedent that may offer hope and guidance for overcoming such obstacles.

201,997-8 Case Number + Situation

Case Summary

201,997-8 Specific Situation

In Washington state, a man named Zachary Leroy Stevens applied for admission to the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA). The situation arose from Stevens’ desire to become a licensed attorney despite his criminal history, which includes serious offenses committed during his youth. Previously, Stevens had also been denied admission to the Arizona State Bar due to concerns about his moral character and fitness to practice law. The controversy centered around whether Stevens had sufficiently rehabilitated and whether he currently possesses the moral character required for bar admission.

Plaintiff’s Argument

Zachary Leroy Stevens, the applicant, argued that he has turned his life around since his past offenses, which occurred when he was a teenager. He emphasized that he has abstained from unlawful conduct since 2013, graduated from college and law school, and developed a supportive network of friends and family. Stevens asserted that he has taken responsibility for his past actions and shown remorse, thus meeting the burden of proving he is a person of good moral character and possesses the requisite fitness to practice law.

Defendant’s Argument

The Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) and the Character and Fitness Board raised concerns about Stevens’ application due to his criminal history, which includes multiple serious offenses and a previous denial of bar admission in Arizona. They argued that Stevens’ past actions, including a requirement to register as a sex offender, raise significant questions about his moral character and fitness to practice law. The WSBA contended that these factors should weigh heavily against granting his application.

Judgment Result

In this case, Zachary Leroy Stevens won. The court decided to grant Stevens’ application for admission to the Washington State Bar Association. The ruling was based on the court’s assessment that Stevens had demonstrated clear and convincing evidence of his rehabilitation and current good moral character. The court emphasized that Stevens is more than the sum of his past mistakes and has shown the requisite fitness to practice law, thereby allowing him to be admitted to the bar.

201,997-8 Related Legal Provisions

APR 24.1(c)

APR 24.1(c) is a critical provision that outlines the burden of proof for bar applicants regarding their moral character and fitness to practice law. Applicants must establish by clear and convincing evidence that they possess good moral character. This means they must demonstrate qualities like honesty, fairness, and respect for the judicial process. The rule emphasizes that an applicant’s past does not automatically disqualify them; rather, their current character and fitness are what’s important. Essentially, the rule provides a framework for evaluating whether someone is ready and suitable to practice law today, regardless of their past mistakes. This provision played a pivotal role in the court’s decision to admit Zachary Stevens, as it required an individualized assessment of his current character.

APR 21(a)(1), (9), (11), (13)

These subsections of APR 21(a) list specific factors considered when assessing an applicant’s moral character and fitness. APR 21(a)(1) involves unlawful conduct, which includes past criminal activities. APR 21(a)(9) addresses violations of court orders, which can indicate a disregard for legal authority. APR 21(a)(11) considers any previous denial of bar admission in another jurisdiction, highlighting concerns about consistency in evaluating character across different states. APR 21(a)(13) looks at conduct that physically threatens or harms others, underlining the severity of actions that could endanger public trust or safety. Each of these factors provides a lens through which the Board evaluates an applicant’s suitability for the legal profession.

APR 21(b)

APR 21(b) lists mitigating and aggravating factors that the Board considers in the context of the applicant’s past conduct. These factors help balance the seriousness of past misconduct against evidence of rehabilitation and positive changes. Mitigating factors might include the applicant’s age at the time of misconduct, the time elapsed since the misconduct, and the applicant’s candor during the admissions process. Aggravating factors could encompass the seriousness and cumulative nature of the misconduct. The rule underscores the importance of evaluating the applicant’s journey toward rehabilitation and current fitness to practice law. This comprehensive approach ensures that each decision is fair and considers the totality of the applicant’s circumstances.

201,997-8 Decision Criteria

Principled Interpretation

APR 24.1(c)

APR 24.1(c) requires that an applicant must demonstrate “good moral character” and “fitness to practice law” by clear and convincing evidence. This means the applicant’s past actions should reflect qualities like honesty, trustworthiness, and respect for the legal system. The evaluation is based on the applicant’s overall conduct and whether they have taken responsibility for past actions.

APR 21(a)(1), (9), (11), (13)

These provisions are considered when assessing an applicant’s character. APR 21(a)(1) involves unlawful conduct, which is relevant if the applicant has a criminal record. APR 21(a)(9) considers violations of court orders, which could include any breaches during probation. APR 21(a)(11) looks at any denial of bar admission in other jurisdictions, reflecting on the applicant’s moral character as judged by different legal systems. Finally, APR 21(a)(13) examines conduct that physically threatens or harms others, focusing on the nature and seriousness of the offenses committed.

APR 21(b)

APR 21(b) outlines factors that can either mitigate or aggravate the applicant’s previous misconduct. These include the seriousness of the conduct, the time elapsed since the misconduct, the applicant’s age at the time, and any efforts towards rehabilitation. Mitigating factors could lessen the perceived severity, while aggravating factors could increase it.

Exceptional Interpretation

APR 24.1(c)

In exceptional cases, APR 24.1(c) allows for a more nuanced view of “good moral character.” Even if past actions were questionable, evidence of significant rehabilitation and positive conduct can demonstrate current fitness to practice law. The focus shifts to whether the applicant has made substantial changes and can be trusted in the legal profession now.

APR 21(a)(1), (9), (11), (13)

These provisions can be interpreted with flexibility in exceptional cases. For instance, APR 21(a)(1) may not heavily weigh past unlawful conduct if it occurred long ago and the applicant has since led a lawful life. APR 21(a)(11), concerning denial in another jurisdiction, might be less critical if that jurisdiction’s criteria substantially differ from Washington’s. APR 21(a)(13) might not apply if the offenses, while serious, did not involve direct physical harm.

APR 21(b)

APR 21(b) can be applied in a way that heavily considers mitigating factors in exceptional cases. For example, if an applicant has shown significant personal growth and accountability, these factors may outweigh the seriousness of past misconduct. Evidence of sustained rehabilitation efforts and community support can also influence the interpretation towards mitigation.

Applied Interpretation

In this case, the court applied a principled interpretation of the relevant rules, focusing on the applicant’s current character and fitness rather than solely on past misconduct. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the applicant’s past actions but weighed heavily on the rehabilitation and positive changes demonstrated since then. This approach recognizes that individuals can change and that the bar admission process should reflect an applicant’s present suitability to practice law, rather than being unduly punitive for past mistakes.

Good Moral Character + Resolution Methods

201,997-8 Resolution Method

In this case, the court ultimately decided in favor of the applicant, granting his admission to the Washington State Bar Association despite a complex and challenging personal history. The court emphasized the importance of individualized inquiry and recognized the applicant’s efforts towards rehabilitation and personal growth over the years. For similar cases, pursuing legal action to challenge a bar denial can be a valid approach, especially if the applicant can demonstrate clear evidence of rehabilitation and good moral character. Given the detailed nature of such proceedings and the need for a strong presentation of evidence, it is advisable to engage a legal professional rather than attempting to handle it alone. This ensures that the applicant’s case is effectively presented and all relevant factors are thoroughly addressed.

Resolution Methods for Similar Cases

Case Variation 1

Imagine an applicant denied bar admission due to a less severe criminal history, such as a single misdemeanor from many years ago, with substantial evidence of rehabilitation and community service. In this scenario, pursuing legal action to appeal the denial could be successful. A self-represented approach might be feasible if the applicant is confident in their ability to present evidence and articulate their case. However, consulting with a legal expert could enhance the chances of a favorable outcome by ensuring all procedural and substantive aspects are adequately covered.

Case Variation 2

Consider a situation where an applicant has been denied bar admission due to multiple minor infractions, none of which involve moral turpitude, but which collectively raise concerns. Here, an alternative resolution method such as seeking mediation with the bar association may be more effective than litigation. Engaging in a dialogue to understand the concerns and demonstrating a commitment to addressing them could lead to a more amicable resolution and potentially a conditional admission or a probationary period.

Case Variation 3

Suppose an applicant with a criminal history similar to the discussed case is denied admission but has not demonstrated significant rehabilitation efforts. In this instance, pursuing legal action might not be the best strategy. Instead, focusing on rehabilitation, seeking mentorship from practicing attorneys, and reapplying after a demonstrative period of good conduct and professional development could prove more beneficial in the long run.

Case Variation 4

Envision an applicant denied admission due to a recent charge that is still pending. In such a case, it would be prudent to delay any legal challenge to the bar admission decision until the resolution of the pending charge. Engaging with a legal professional to manage the pending case and simultaneously working on rehabilitation efforts would be advisable. Once the charge is resolved and assuming a positive outcome, the applicant could then consider reapplying or appealing the earlier denial with a stronger position.

FAQ

What is APR?

APR stands for Admission and Practice Rules, which govern the requirements and procedures for admission to the bar in Washington State.

Who is Zachary Stevens?

Zachary Stevens is an applicant who sought admission to the Washington State Bar Association despite having a criminal history.

What was Stevens accused of?

Stevens was convicted of multiple serious crimes, including voyeurism, and was required to register as a sex offender.

Why was Stevens’ application denied in Arizona?

Stevens’ application was denied in Arizona due to concerns about his criminal history and lack of evidence of rehabilitation.

What is a moral character inquiry?

A moral character inquiry evaluates an applicant’s ethical and legal behavior to determine eligibility for bar admission.

What is the role of APR 21?

APR 21 outlines the factors considered when assessing an applicant’s moral character and fitness to practice law.

How does Washington differ from Arizona?

Washington does not have a presumption against admission for applicants with a criminal history, unlike Arizona, which has stricter standards.

What are mitigating factors?

Mitigating factors are circumstances that may reduce the perceived severity of an applicant’s past misconduct.

What is sex offender registration?

Sex offender registration is a legal requirement for individuals convicted of certain sexual offenses to regularly update law enforcement about their whereabouts.

What is forum shopping?

Forum shopping refers to the practice of choosing a legal jurisdiction perceived to be more favorable for a case, often to avoid stricter rules elsewhere.

Old Conviction Haunts in Washington What happened next