You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Seide v. Committee of Bar Examiners

Citations: 782 P.2d 602; 49 Cal. 3d 933; 264 Cal. Rptr. 361; 1989 Cal. LEXIS 2090Docket: S009069

Court: California Supreme Court; December 4, 1989; California; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Supreme Court of California upheld the State Bar Court's Review Department's decision to deny a petitioner's admission to the bar due to a lack of good moral character. The petitioner, who passed the California Bar exam, had a history of serious criminal conduct including drug trafficking offenses, notably a conviction for selling cocaine. Despite presenting evidence of rehabilitation, such as letters from character witnesses and engaging in societal contributions, the evidence was deemed insufficient. The review department emphasized the petitioner's failure to demonstrate genuine remorse and responsibility for past actions, pointing out that he was still on probation during the hearings. The burden of proof for demonstrating moral fitness for bar admission lies with the applicant, and the petitioner was unable to meet this requirement. The court found that the petitioner's criminal background, particularly given his previous role as a law enforcement officer, reflected a fundamental disregard for the law he was to uphold as an attorney. Consequently, the court denied the petitioner's application, permitting reapplication after two years contingent upon evidence of continued exemplary conduct.

Legal Issues Addressed

Admission to the Bar and Moral Character Requirement

Application: The petitioner was denied admission to the bar due to a lack of good moral character based on his extensive criminal history involving drug offenses.

Reasoning: Petitioner George N. Seide contested the decision of the State Bar Court's Review Department to deny his admission to the bar based on a lack of good moral character.

Burden of Proof in Bar Admission Proceedings

Application: The burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate moral fitness for certification, distinguishing it from disbarment proceedings where the State Bar proves unfitness.

Reasoning: Unlike disbarment proceedings where the State Bar proves unfitness, an applicant must show moral fitness for certification.

Impact of Past Misconduct on Moral Character Assessment

Application: The petitioner's past cocaine trafficking was considered an act of moral turpitude, reflecting bad moral character unsuitable for bar admission.

Reasoning: Petitioner’s cocaine trafficking constitutes acts of moral turpitude, indicative of bad moral character, warranting disbarment.

Rehabilitation and Moral Fitness for Bar Admission

Application: Despite presenting evidence of rehabilitation, the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of good moral character necessary for bar admission.

Reasoning: Petitioner, despite a serious criminal history, seeks to prove his rehabilitation and good moral character, but fails to establish a prima facie case.

Weight of Character Evidence

Application: The review department found the character evidence insufficient, particularly given the petitioner's recent probation status and lack of acknowledgment of past wrongdoings.

Reasoning: The review department expressed skepticism regarding some character evidence, noting that many witnesses lacked a complete understanding of the severity of petitioner’s involvement in drug dealing.