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.
It is preposterous for bar C&F examiners to consider charges which have been dismissed, expunged, vacated, not prosecuted, plead down, etc...if anyone shows a disrespect for our established legal system and the fundamentals which underlie it, it is the bar itself...sure, practicing law is a position of trust, but in most cases, really not so much more than positions in asset management, banking, or even say being a chef? Isn't someone making food for strangers in a position of trust as well? And yet no one is allowed to dig into the past of people applying for other professions to elicit information that is supposed to be barred from consideration.
Posted by: Dave | February 28, 2009 at 01:26 PM
Of course this guy should be able to practice law!!! This country is based on the principals of the constitution and historically based on biblical principals. Majority of Americans proclaim christianity. What does God say? Did God ask us to forgive? The guy might as well stay in prison for the rest of his life if America is not willing to allow him an opportunity to reintegrate. When he does have this opportunity to practice law, it's not a gift, it's a right!! A right to the pursuit of happiness like everyone else. Ex. If my daughter does something so bad that I spank her and ground her, Do I continue to whipp her everyday for the same offense? No!! I explain, spank, punish, forgive and move on. If she does something wrong again, The punishment might be worse, if not, she learned her lesson, I still love her!!! Wouldn't it be child-abuse if I continued to punish her indefinitely!!!!!!! I'm basically stating then that she deserves to die because she got caught or because she's not perfect. Who is? For every person that disagrees with this man practicing law, I need to ask you if you believe in your criminal justice system and if you do, you are clearly contradicting your statements. If you believe a judges rulings are just, then you believe that the person has paid his/her dues and when the punishment is over, it's over. What if you were out drinking one night and you felt okay and decided, "I only live up the street, I'm good, I'll drive myself home." Maybe you were, but you hit a kid!! The kid came out of know where. The kid dies and you've been charged with vehicular homocide. This would be horrible and although not intentional, you still have to pay your dues. When you leave prison, would you want society to tell you that you can't have a place stay or work?
Posted by: Tamico Pulliam | October 23, 2008 at 01:15 PM
I dont think that a person should not be allowed to practice law because of his/her past. In this case, Wiesner was convicted and the law decided for him to serve certain amount of time. If he has done all that, than in my opinion there should be no reason to keep denying his admittance in the bar.
Posted by: Fahad Syed | March 22, 2008 at 11:33 PM