Should Convicted Felons Be Admitted to the New York Bar? What Should the ‘Character and Fitness’ Requirements for Admission Be?

Lately, there seems to be a lot of discussion about whether convicted felons should be able to be admitted to practice law.

On one lawyers’ discussion group, a heated debate ensued after one member expressed outrage when a convicted felon was admitted to practice law in California. There was a decisive split in the discussion group about whether the individual should have been considered for admission at all, or whether the California bar could possibly have done its job in screening the individual’s character and fitness.

Some members of the discussion group expressed the opinion that, having ‘paid his debt to society’ by serving his time in prison, this person should be permitted to enter the practice just like any other law school graduate that passed the bar exam.

Today’s Wall Street Journal Law Blog seems to have begun a similar discussion among commenters to the blog post, New York Sets a High Bar for Convicted Felon, discussing the story of Neil Wiesner, who has been attempting (unsuccessfully) to get admitted to practice law in New York for the past 9 years.

According to the Wall Street Journal Law Blog, Wiesner was convicted of attempted murder in the 1980s, and has been denied admission to the New York bar nine times, reportedly as a result of the prior crime, his prison sentence, and the alleged lack of remorse exhibited by Mr. Wiesner.

Comments on the blog post range from those who think that the idea of admitting someone to the bar who has been convicted of attempted murder is ‘absurd’ to those who think that Wiesner has done his time in prison and deserves a ‘break.’ Others seem to think that because (in their opinion) the bar already includes some individuals of questionable integrity, it is hypocritical of the bar to deny admission to Wiesner.

But while it may be true that some lawyers that have been admitted to practice are not living up to the standards of the character and fitness committee, is that a reason to ignore the standards when reviewing new candidates for admission to the bar?

As for those that think that having served his time in prison, a convicted criminal deserves a ‘break,’ the mere fact that the bar is considering the individual for admission means that he is being given the same considerations as other candidates. All candidates must go through a character and fitness review. The committee has obviously felt, on nine separate occasions, that this individual did not demonstrate the requisite characteristics to qualify for admission.

What are the factors that the character and fitness committee use to determine whether an individual should be admitted to the bar? What should they be looking for? Why have a character and fitness committee at all if we’re going to question their judgment in refusing to admit an individiual who was convicted for attempting to take another’s life?

And what about lawyers who are already admitted to the bar and commit crimes? Should they all automatically be returned to practice once they have served their prison sentences? Should we have a character and fitness committee at all? In short, should there be standards for admission to practice law, other than passing the bar exam?

Your comments are welcome.