IN RE: COMMITTEE ON BAR ADMISSIONS CFN-1482 (2022)

Conditional admission granted. See per curiam.

BAR ADMISSIONS PROCEEDING

Petitioner applied to take the Louisiana Bar Examination. The Committee on Bar Admissions (“Committee”) advised petitioner that it could not certify him to take the bar exam on character and fitness grounds. Petitioner then applied to this court for permission to take the bar exam. We granted the application, with the condition that upon petitioner's successful completion of the exam, he apply for the appointment of a commissioner to take character and fitness evidence.

Upon passing the bar exam, and on petitioner's application to this court, we remanded this matter to the Committee on Bar Admissions Panel on Character and Fitness to conduct an investigation and appointed a commissioner to take character and fitness evidence. During the hearing before the commissioner, evidence was introduced pertaining to petitioner's record of criminal offenses, his failure to disclose these offenses when he applied to law school, his academic discipline, and his denial of admission to the Mississippi Bar in 2013 on character and fitness grounds. Following the proceedings, the commissioner filed his report with this court, recommending that petitioner's application for admission to the practice of law be denied. In response, petitioner filed a motion to withdraw his application for admission. We granted the motion in February 2019 and ordered that petitioner would not be permitted to reapply for admission for a period of two years, and in no event prior to his successful completion of a two-year diagnostic monitoring agreement with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program (“JLAP”).

Petitioner successfully completed his JLAP agreement on July 28, 2020. Thereafter, he reapplied for admission to the practice of law in Mississippi. Following a character and fitness review, petitioner was admitted to the practice of law in Mississippi in April 2021.

In September 2021, petitioner reapplied for admission to the practice of law in Louisiana. We remanded the matter to the Committee on Bar Admissions Panel on Character and Fitness to conduct an investigation and appointed a commissioner to take character and fitness evidence. Following a hearing, the commissioner filed his report with this court, recommending that petitioner be admitted to the practice of law. Neither party objected to this recommendation.

Considering the commissioner's recommendation and the entire record of this proceeding, we conclude petitioner is eligible to be admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana, subject to the following conditions:

1) The term of this conditional admission shall be for two years from the date of admission. However, petitioner's conditional admission status shall not be terminated until this court so orders.

2) Within thirty days of petitioner's admission, he shall enter into a formal plan with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) incorporating the following conditions:

i) During the period of this conditional admission, petitioner shall attend and successfully complete the Louisiana State Bar Association's Ethics School program.

ii) Petitioner shall cooperate with the ODC, and shall comply with any and all requirements imposed upon him by the ODC.

3) Within thirty days prior to the expiration of the conditional admission, the ODC shall file a report in this court in which it shall recommend to the court that the conditional admission be allowed to terminate or be extended.

Should petitioner fail to make a good faith effort to satisfy these conditions, or should he commit any misconduct during the period of probation, his conditional right to practice may be terminated or he may be subjected to other discipline pursuant to the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement.

CONDITIONAL ADMISSION GRANTED.

I concur in the decision to grant petitioner's conditional admission and the imposition of the conditions with which the petitioner must comply. However, I dissent in part because I would impose costs associated with the initial commissioner hearing.

After receiving an unfavorable result from the initial commissioner hearing that petitioner, himself, requested, petitioner withdrew his application for admission. Some years later, he requested another hearing before a commissioner. The procedure set forth for admission in Supreme Court Rule XVII § 9 does not contemplate an applicant going through a hearing process and then abandoning that process. Petitioner abandoned the initial process when he withdrew his application, thereby thwarting the procedure set forth by the rule.

Consequently, I would order that petitioner pay all costs associated with the initial hearing as a condition for admission.