In the Matter of the Application of BERNARD
JOLLES for Examination and Admission to Practice Law
[NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL]
Supreme Court of Oregon
235 Ore. 262;
383 P.2d 388;
1963 Ore. LEXIS 468
March 4, 1963, Argued
June 19, 1963
PRIOR HISTORY:
[***1]
Petition for Review of Decision of Board of Bar Examiners of Oregon State Bar
Denying Application for Admission.
DISPOSITION: Petition allowed.
COUNSEL:
R. W. Nahstoll, Portland, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Allan
Hart and Harlow F. Lenon, Portland.
Hugh L. Biggs and
Howard I. Bobbitt, Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for Oregon State Bar.
JUDGES: In Banc. McAllister, Chief Justice, and Rossman, Perry, Sloan, O'Connell and
Goodwin, Justices. Perry, J., dissenting. Mr. Chief Justice McAllister joins
in this dissent.
OPINIONBY: O'CONNELL
OPINION:
[*263]
[**388] Bernard Jolles, having passed the
bar examination has made application for admission to the Oregon State Bar. The Board of Bar
Examiners has recommended that his application be denied on the ground that
Jolles failed to establish that he is a person of
good moral character which is a requisite for admission. ORS 9.220 (2). The Board's
recommendation is based upon the following grounds:
"1.
Membership of Mr. Jolles in the
Communist Party from 1949 to 1957 and the nature of his activities while a member of the
party.
"2. His refusal to answer pertinent questions in his
[***2]
interview before the Board.
"3. Admitted
falsification of application for
dock passes to the
Waterfront Commission of New York and the U. S. Coast Guard.
"4. Failure to
disclose, in the
Northwestern College of Law application, his past
Communist
affiliation.
"5. Failure to provide the Board with any evidence, other than his own testimony
of
disassociation from the
Communist
Party."
The facts are as follows: n1
"Applicant's Background
"Jolles is [34] years old. He was born and raised in New York City, educated in
the public schools of New York and graduated from high school in 1946. His
parents had immigrated from the Poland-Austria area of Eastern Europe. Through
his parents and special schooling he was exposed at an early age to
[*264] certain socialistic and so-called left-wing principles and beliefs. Neither
his parents nor any other members of his immediate family were
Communist Party members, and his parents opposed his joining the
Communist Party (hereinafter also referred to as the 'Party'). * * * [His] father was
unemployed during part of the early depression
[**389] years. In the latter part of the 1930's * * * [his] father opened a
lunch-counter
[***3] business which he operated successfully for many years.
"Jolles was honorably discharged from the Navy after serving 22 months in 1946
and 1947. He attended
New York University from 1948-51 from which he received a bachelor's degree in
1951.
"While in school, Jolles worked at a variety of part-time and summer-time jobs
and from time-to-time assisted his father in operating the lunch stand.
Following graduation from New York University in 1951 he was employed as an
assistant buyer in the New York garment industry until 1953 when, for reasons
hereinafter explained, he went to work on the
waterfront as a
longshoreman.
"He was a
longshoreman until 1957 when he came to Oregon. * * * [He worked] first at Meier
& Frank's [department store] for a short period before entering the employ of
the Portland
law firm of Anderson, Franklin, Jones
& Olsen.
"Communist Party
Affiliation
"Jollesjoined the
Communist Party in 1949. * * * [At that time he was 21 years of age and a] student at
New York University. He was
a member of two different neighborhood
clubs * * * [referred to in the Party as] 'cells' * * *. [The first cell was an
adult
club. The second was a youth group of
[***4] which
[*265] Jolles became chairman. He was also a member of a Communist-front
organization designed to lure other young people into the
Communist Party.]
"In 1953, he voluntarily left employment in the garment industry to become a
longshoreman on the New York
waterfront in order further to assist the Party. He gives as his reason for the change
of employment his belief that if any change toward socialism was to be made in
our society, it would be brought about by the industrial worker in the basic
industries. He wanted to further the cause of the workers and the Party by
being directly identified with them.
"Financial betterment, either immediately or in the future, was not one of
Jolles' purposes in going on the
waterfront.
"In 1953 he became affiliated with a
Party
waterfront
club of about four members which was part of a larger group of * * * [less than 20]
members known as the
Waterfront Section Committee. He became Chairman of his
club in 1954, and ultimately became Organizational Secretary * * * of the Section,
which had Party responsibility for [propagandizing] approximately 10,000
longshoremen who worked on the Brooklyn
waterfront. He also worked and met
[***5] with regional organizers and officials, although he held no regional position
or office (the region involved included the entire New York
waterfront [and was not in a policy-making position]).
"Jolles' activities while a Party member included * * * [attending Party]
meetings, generally weekly; participating in support of candidates for public
office endorsed by the Party; participating in demonstrations * * * [in
accordance with] Party orders or directions including picketing of the White
House in connection with the Rosenberg convictions; dissemination
[*266] of
Party-prepared and sponsored literature and leaflets; * * * [the writing of]
articles in, and otherwise assisting in preparation and circulation of, The
Dockers' News, a Party
waterfront publication; attending the Party-supported Thomas Jefferson School of Social
Studies for about a year, taking courses in [Marxist] economic theory; and
attempting to persuade others to join the Party or to support its causes. His
social life was also centered around his Party associates.
"Jolles admitted an understanding and awareness of Party philosophy, principles
and aims. He testified that the Party's position in the
[***6] United States with regard to force and violence, as he understood it and the
position to which he subscribed, was that resort to force would be justified
[**390] and used if a capitalistic minority resisted the efforts and frustrated the
will of the majority to establish socialism.
"* * * Jolles * * * conceal[ed] his
membership as a Party member from those who were not Party members. For example, he used
the name 'Eddie' at Party [meetings] to minimize the risk of identification. Party meetings were secret
and held in private homes. When he went on the
waterfront in 1953, he ceased subscribing to
Communist literature to further reduce the possibility of being exposed as a
Communist or identified with the movement. During his eight active years of Party
affiliation, the Party was not an open political party in New York. Also, during this
period the United States was involved in the Berlin blockade * and Korean War,
and the Russian intervention in Hungary took place.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
*
"His
membership covered a part of the period of the blockade. The Berlin blockade and
resulting airlift commenced November 6, 1948 and terminated October 4, 1949.
Jolles stated that he joined the party in the fall of 1949."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[***7]
[*267]
"Jolles testified that he
openly disassociated himself with and resigned from the Party in May of 1957 at a
meeting of the Section of which he was Organizational
Secretary. He testified that in the preceding year he had become disillusioned
about the Party and its objectives, and had re-examined the Party position and
his own beliefs. He cited Premier Khrushchev's speech denouncing Stalin along
with the Russian intervention in Hungary, as the incidents which motivated his
personal re-examination of the Party and ultimate
disassociation. His wife testified that his motivating purposes for
disassociation were [largely] economic, domestic and personal. His Party
affiliation, and especially his
waterfront employment, had caused family difficulties because of the economic sacrifice
imposed and the time required away from home.
"* * * [Jolles was] requested * * * by counsel for the Bar and by the Board
members * * * to
disclose the names of any person familiar from personal knowledge with Jolles'
activities while in the Party or who could confirm from personal knowledge that
he did in fact
openly resign from the Party in May of 1957. Jolles refused.
"He recognized
[***8] that the Board had no other direct way of corroborating his
testimony as to some of his Party activities or as to his
disassociation.
"False or Incomplete Affidavits re New York
Waterfront Employment
"Jolles admitted at the hearing in answer to a direct question that he knowingly
and deliberately gave false or incomplete information under oath to the
Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor and the United States Coast Guard regarding his
membership
[*268] in the
Communist Party [in order] to obtain access to the New York
waterfront area to further the Party's cause.
"A
dock pass from the
Waterfront Commission and a Coast Guard permit were required by law in order to obtain
such employment. The Coast Guard requirement was a part of the internal
security program during the Korean War to keep
Communists out of critical
waterfront areas. False answers were necessary for Jolles to gain access to the
waterfront.
"In his application to the
Waterfront Commission, Jolles
answered 'No' to the following question.
"'Do you knowingly or wilfully advocate the
desirability of overthrowing or destroying the Government of the United States by force or
violence, or are you a member
[***9] of a group which advocates such
desirability, knowing the purposes of such group include such advocacy?'
"The Coast Guard refused as a matter of policy to
disclose any information to the Board, although authorized to do so by
[**391] Jolles. * That Jolles' Coast Guard application was false in part was admitted
and accepted by Jolles and his counsel throughout the February-March hearings.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
*
"Attempts by the Board in the summer of 1961 to obtain information regarding
Jolles'
Communist activities from records, if any, of the Federal Bureau of Investigation had
also been unsuccessful."
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Applications to
Northwestern College of Law and Other Schools
"The application form for admission to
Northwestern College of Law [(]either before or immediately after his asserted
disassociation from the Party and
[*269] while still living in New
York City[)], includes the following:
"'At the time of filing application for admission on examination to the Oregon
State Bar, an applicant's
moral character, past
[***10] and present, is brought under careful surveillance by the Board of Bar
Examiners. The
Northwestern College of Law is equally interested in having in its student body only those whose character
will stand the most rigid scrutiny. Any applicant for admission to the
law school who is aware of circumstances in his life that might be considered a
reflection on his character, whether deemed justified or not, should set forth
such circumstances fully on a separate sheet and attach the same to this
application. Candor and truthfulness in this regard cannot be overemphasized.'
"* * * [He admitted] that a full, complete and candid response to the
application would have required
disclosure of his
Communist Party
affiliation and activities * * *. He gave as his reasons * * * [for failing to make the
disclosure his] desire to first establish himself and make a
new life without
disclosing the past * * * [and his] desire not to make a public record of his Party
membership until or unless necessary to do so. He indicated his awareness that
disclosure would have to be made at such time as he might seek admission to a state bar,
but [he felt] that it was always possible he would not
[***11] complete the law study * * * [in which case]
disclosure [would not be] * * * necessary. He also admitted that his non-disclosure was
due in part to fear that he might not be admitted to
law school [but that this was not the basic consideration].
"Jolles also filed an application for admission to Brooklyn
Law School at approximately the same time
[*270] that he applied to Northwestern. His application had been destroyed by the
school. The form of application used by the school contains the following
question:
"'Has there been any incident in your life which might jeopardize the
recommendation by the Committee on Character and Fitness for your admission to the Bar? . .
. If so, briefly state the facts.'
Jolles
testified that in his state of mind at that time, he probably
answered the question 'no.'
"At the August, 1961 hearing, Jolles testified that, for the reasons summarized
above in connection with his Northwestern application, he thought he falsified
his application to New York University
Law School filed in the
spring of 1957 by denying or otherwise failing to
disclose his past Party
Membership. In fact, the New York University application contained
[***12] no question or statement requiring
disclosure. * * *
"Disclosure of Party
Affiliation
"The first
disclosure made by Jolles to anyone in Oregon of his past Party
membership was to Robert E. Jones, one of the partners in the firm by whom he was
employed. It was made in the
spring of 1959, about a year and a half after he had accepted employment. * * *
Jones, * * * testified that as he became better acquainted with Jolles, he
became somewhat suspicious of his background and thought there was
a good chance it included
affiliation with
Communism. The record continues:
"'So, I just -- one Saturday morning we were sitting there in my office. No one
else was around, and I said,'Well,
[**392] Bernie, were you ever a
Communist, or are you --' I don't know how I worded it, but just cold turkey with him,
and he looked like I had hit him in the face with a wet fish, and he
[*271] backed up and he kind of hunched his shoulders and he looked at me and said,
'I am not going to lie to you, Bob. I was . . . .'
"Jolles did not
disclose his Party
affiliation to representatives of
Northwestern College of Law until confronted with the question in the
spring of 1961 by Northwestern
[***13] representatives who had learned of it from other sources. The
disclosure to Northwestern came just before graduation and after he had been selected as
valedictorian by his classmates. Under the circumstances, Jolles withdrew as
valedictorian."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n1 The Board's summary of the facts is adopted with
minor changes.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jolles and his brother made efforts to locate former associates in the
Communist Party to determine if they were prepared to consent to
disclosure of their identity. They contacted four persons in New York and California.
One, a cousin, forwarded an affidavit corroborating Jolles' testimony
concerning his break with the party. The others refused to allow their names
to be used. One sent in a letter explaining why his name should not be used.
Jolles called him with his attorney listening to the conversation and the
witness agreed to meet anonymously with the Board, but the Board declined to do
so.
An applicant for admission to the bar of this state has the burden of proving
that he is
"a person of
[***14]
good moral character." n2 Six members of the Board were of the opinion that Jolles had not met this
burden of proof; three members were of the opinion that he had.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n2 ORS 9.220 provides that:
"An applicant for admission as attorney must apply to the
Supreme Court and show that he or she:
"* * *
"(2) Is a person of
good moral character, which may be proved by any evidence satisfactory to the court."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The record clearly
discloses misconduct which would
[*272] be sufficient to disqualify a person for
membership in the Oregon State Bar. The
falsification of the application for a
dock pass would, in itself, be sufficient to justify disqualification for such
membership. Jolles concedes as much. But he takes the position that his moral delinquency
in this respect grew out of his acceptance of
communist doctrine (which regards deception as an acceptable device for the attainment
of
communist ends) and that he is no longer subject to this deluding influence of
communism.
It is not clear whether the same
[***15] influence was at work when Jolles filed an application for admission to
Northwestern College of Law in the
spring of 1957. If at that time he had disassociated himself from the
Communist Party (which seems to be the case), his
failure to disclose his previous
affiliation with the
party would have to be explained upon a ground other than party loyalty. The
application form did not make a direct inquiry as to one's conduct while
holding
membership in a subversive organization. It called for the
disclosure of
"any circumstance in his life that might be considered a reflection on his
character, whether deemed justified or not." Although the question is somewhat ambiguous asto the type of past conduct one
should
disclose, Jolles candidly admitted that he regarded the question as possibly calling for
a
disclosure of his previous conduct in connection with the
Communist Party. He explained his
failure to disclose as follows:
"Q. Is it your feeling that there was nothing on the application to Northwestern
that required you to make any
disclosure of this at the time?
"A. Well, I probably felt that way because I wanted to feel that way. I suppose
if I had analyzed it -- there is a
[***16] question there, I believe, to the effect,
[*273] 'is there anything else you think we
ought to know about?' and I think I
answered that no, and possibly I should have said yes and disclosed the
[**393] entire matter at that time. I didn't do that, and I just felt that in between
the time of entering
law school and being admitted to the Bar, too much could happen, so that if I didn't
complete
law school or I didn't go through with it, I just didn't want to make any public record
of it at that time. That's the way I felt then."
"* * *
"* * * Didn't you well realize that you should, to completely answer that
application correctly and honestly, make a
disclosure of that background of
Communist activity? Didn't you understand that when you completed that application?
"MR. JOLLES: Well, I can't say anything more than -- I certainly was not
confused or misunderstood or anything. I just felt that it was arguable
whether I could in good conscience and honesty say yes or no to that question.
At the time I had just left and
I was still emotionally upset from the separation and shock, I guess you would
call it, having everything that I thought was right and good turn out to be
[***17] just smoke, I suppose. I mean, as I said before, I was certainly aware that
it was a possibility and maybe even a probability that that's what they wanted,
but I did not deliberately intend to falsify, nor do I feel I was falsifying at
that time. I felt that if they wanted -- there was certainly room for
argument. This is all going on in my own -- arguing with myself in terms of
convincing myself, that if they wanted to know specifically that, that they
could have asked it, and since they didn't -- I agree it's weak, but I was
grasping at straws, you might say.
"I just didn't -- wasn't very anxious to reveal that, not for the purpose of
falsifying but for the purpose of not having something publicly revealed for no
purpose whatsoever in terms of --
I might
[*274] have quit
law school after a year or two or not made the grade or something like that.
"* * *
"MR. BROPHY: You felt that to make a full
disclosure you should actually set forth the nature of your
Communist activities, didn't you?
"MR. JOLLES: Yes.
"MR. BROPHY: Now, the reason for not
disclosing that was to some extent a combination of things, perhaps. Were you somewhat
concerned about the possibility of not being
[***18] admitted to Northwestern if you did make that
disclosure?
"MR. JOLLES: Yes. That is another thing which I neglected to mention. I felt
that there was this possibility, that perhaps this would result in my not even
getting the chance to go through
law school, and I just wanted to defer it until it became necessary to
disclose it when I did."
Jolles further testified as follows:
"* * * I understand that one could get the impression that my major reason for
handling the
Northwestern application as I did was to gain admission to
law school. That is not correct, Mr. Biggs. I said that, and I said that was one of the
reasons. I rather think it was an unimportant reason. For whatever difference
it makes, my basic reason was the one which I indicated initially in that
transcript, the effect that I wanted to give myself a chance to make an
impression so that -- so well, just take this proceeding here today. You have
seen many people come in this room testifying, some testifying more strongly
than others, but all at least expressing a willingness to come forward and
testify, that at least so far as they were aware, I had behaved myself as one
would with
good moral character
[***19] does."
Jolles voluntarily disclosed his past
membership in the
Communist Party when he made application to
[*275] take the
bar examination,
[**394] and later he disclosed the facts relating to filling out the application for a
dock pass and the
application for admission to Northwestern
Law School. This lends support to Jolles' assertion that his
failure to disclose his
Communist Party
affiliation in his
law school application was a temporary expedient only and that he ultimately intended to
reveal that fact if and when he made application for permission to take the
Oregon State Bar examination.
Although his initial
failure to disclose the information was improper, we feel that in light of his subsequent
forthrightness in voluntarily
disclosing the information there was no intent to practice deception in gaining admission
to the bar.
In petitioning this court for the privilege to practice law in this state
Jolles admits his past misconduct and pleads
reformation of character.
Reformation is a very difficult matter for a petitioner to prove and for us to judge
because evidence of morality is not ordinarily adducible in positive form.
Generally, proof must be made through
[***20] the appraisal of those with whom the petitioner has
worked and lived and who are in a position to see how he makes choices calling
for moral decisions. The petitioner offered this proof through the testimony
of the members of the
law firm where he was employed and through the testimony of others who were acquainted
with him. Each of his employers emphatically asserted that Jolles was a person
of
good moral character. Others who associated with him concurred in that appraisal.
Upon the basis of the evidence the minority of the Board concluded
"that Jolles severed his
Communist Party
affiliation, is no longer a member of the Party and that he now rejects its principles and
practices
[*276] and regrets his own wrongful actions. Based on this belief and since his
detrimental conduct [and wrongful actions] were related to his
Communist Party
affiliation, they do not believe that such conduct or actions will be repeated. In the
light of his conduct during the past five years and from the testimony of those
who have associated with him during that period of time, the minority members
of the Board feel that Jolles does now
possess the requisite
moral character for admission."
[***21]
The majority of the Board found the evidence of Jolles' rehabilitation
unconvincing. Further, they were of the opinion that Jolles'
refusal to disclose the names of the persons with whom he was associated in the
Communist Party so as to enable the Board to determine whether Jolles
openly resigned from the party as he contended he did, was ground for adverse
recommendation.
After a thorough examination of the record in this case we are of the opinion
that there is sufficient evidence of Jolles' present
good moral character to qualify him for
membership in the Oregon State Bar. Our conclusion rests principally upon the testimony
of his employers, who are three highly respected members of the bar. It would
serve no good purpose to set out in detail their declarations of confidence in
the integrity of Jolles and the grounds upon which it is based. We are further
impressed by the forthrightness with which Jolles presented his case to the
Board and to this court. Jolles'
refusal to disclose the names of his former colleagues
in the
Communist Party may have obstructed the Board's efforts to verify Jolles' assertion that
he
openly resigned from the party. The likelihood of establishing
[***22] the truth or falsity of his assertion by interviewing his former associates is
not
[*277] very great. But assuming that something of value might have been disclosed
through such
interviews, we believe that Jolles'
refusal to disclose the names of his former colleagues for fear that it would harm them was
sincere and that it should not be used as a basis for denying him the privilege
of practicing law in Oregon. This sincerity is pointed up by his efforts to
obtain permission to use their names and in lieu thereof to arrange anonymous
interviews with the Board.
[**395] We are convinced that Jolles is free from the
Communist influences which distorted his moral judgment and that he is now a person of
good moral character. Having passed the
bar examination he is eligible for admission to the Oregon State Bar upon filing the
prescribed oath.
DISSENTBY: PERRY
DISSENT: PERRY, J., dissenting.
After serious consideration of the personal loss, and perhaps personal
injustice, which could result to the petitioner from a denial of his
application, and my duties as a member of this court intrusted in such matters
with the welfare of the public and the profession, I am compelled to disagree
[***23] with the conclusion reached by the majority.
The fact that petitioner was at one time a cardcarrying member of the
Communist party carries no weight in my thinking, except insofar as his
membership therein at the time of joining and his actions in connection therewith reflect
upon his present
moral character.
The majority point out that the petitioner is equipped with excellent mental
faculties, therefore no reason seems to exist for any belief that he did not
know the moral import of his actions. In fact, with
[*278] relation to a
falsification to the Coast Guard, to which I will refer later, he stated,
"Yes, I felt I had a code of morals
even while I was in the Party. However, I don't mean to suggest that it was
consistent with that personal code of morals to falsify Coast Guard affidavit."
As stated by the majority, petitioner entered the United States Navy in 1946.
It is common knowledge that one who enters the armed forces of this country
takes an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, yet within two
years after his discharge from the Navy he joined an organization whose reputed
purpose was the overthrow of that Constitution. He must have known, with
[***24] the publicity existing at that time, that his
membership in the organization was inimicable to respect for the laws of this country and
the rights of the people of this country as guaranteed by that Constitution.
His efforts to conceal his connection with the organization at that time
clearly
disclose his actions would not stand the light of truth.
That petitioner once believed in the doctrine of rule by might instead of rule
by law is found in his statement that he believed
force was justified if necessary to achieve a political goal.
The petitioner's greatest lack of
moral character is disclosed in the revelation of a deliberate falsehood perpetrated against
this country when at a time this country, as it still is, was engaged in what
has been termed a cold war with Russia and
Communist China.
For security purposes applicants for
longshoreman work in New York harbor were required to make application to the
Waterfront Commission of that harbor. In this application was this question, as set out
in the majority opinion:
"Do you knowingly or wilfully advocate the
desirability of overthrowing or destroying
[*279] the Government of the United States by force or violence, or are
[***25] you a member of a group which advocates such
desirability, knowing the purposes of such group include such advocacy?", the petitioner
answered in the negative.
The majority opinion does not comment upon this falsehood. In my opinion this
is an act which clearly shows a lack of
moral stamina.
The petitioner admitted he knew his action was wrong, yet knowing this he did
the act, and salved his own conscience with the thought that others have before
acted falsely. He states he did no act of sabotage, but this very act was an
attempt to sabotage his government's lawful purpose.
The
practice of law is a privilege -- not a right.
In re Weinstein, 150 Ore. 1, 6, 42 P.2d 744;
Re Application of Jesse Crum, 103 Ore. 296, 204 P. 948. A lawyer is a trusted officer of the courts, and into his hands are intrusted
the client's innermost confidences, his valued possessions, and on occasion,
even his life itself.
[**396] Good
moral character is difficult of exact definition, but for the lawyer its elements must include
simple honesty, fairness, respect for the rights of others, and the laws of the
state and nation. In my opinion
moral
character is disclosed in past deeds, not in
[***26] protestations of reform when a desired purpose is to be gained.
The entire burden of the majority's opinion is that the petitioner has
reformed. In what manner, the opinion is unclear. If they mean he has changed
his views as to the values of
communism as opposed to democracy, that is well and good, but the real question is
whether his
moral fiber has changed. He stated he had moral values above those taught by the
Communists, but his own conscious values did not prevail.
[*280] His own moral values did not stand the test in the past, and since then, have
not been tested. Can it then be said, since he has abandoned his communistic
views his
moral fiber is stronger than before? Evidence which supplies merely a belief of
reformation of moral views deserves consideration, but it does not, in my opinion, meet
the burden of establishing proof of
good moral character.
The fact that one guilty of misconduct which would clearly disqualify him for
admission to the Bar may establish that he has subsequently had a clean record
for several years would not necessarily justify this court in concluding that
his
moral fiber would not again break under sufficient temptation. So, in the
[***27] matter before us, can we say without doubt in our minds that the petitioner
will not, if endowed with fervor for a cause, violate his trust as a lawyer to
uphold the laws of this state and nation, or give false testimony, though
knowing it morally wrong?
When petitioner applied for admission to
law school he continued to conceal his unlawful
communist activities. In fact, petitioner did not at any time voluntarily make a clean
breast of his hidden activities. It was not until a member of the
law firm by which petitioner was employed confronted him with a direct question which
could not be evaded that petitioner finally disclosed that he had been a
communist. This
continued deception deepens the doubt as to petitioner's
reformation, even in his beliefs.
I realize the efforts which the petitioner has put forth to prepare for the
practice of law, and I have the greatest respect and admiration for the judgment of those who
in anywise sponsored his cause, but to me it is clear the petitioner has failed
to meet the
[*281] burden of showing
good moral character for the
practice of law, and this court ought not to permit the people of this state to be used as a
proving ground for
[***28] the purpose of determining whether or not there has been
reformation.
For the reasons given, I dissent.
