The Supreme Court of New Jersey Committee on Character evaluates applicants to the New Jersey Bar for their current character and fitness to practice law. [Disclosure: I was a member of the Committee for fifteen years, and I currently represent Bar applicants in connection with Committee on Character applications and proceedings]. There is relatively little caselaw, however, regarding the Committee on Character process. One of those cases, however, was decided on December 4, 1998, seventeen years ago today. In re LaTourette, 156 N.J. 444 (1998).
William LaTourette passed the New Jersey Bar exam. But his Certified Statement of Candidate, a sworn submission required of all New Jersey Bar applicants, revealed (according to the per curiam opinion of the Supreme Court) “arrearages in child support, various questionable civil suits, and intemperate interaction with the New Jersey Board of Bar Examiners and with members of his law school community.” There was also an issue arising out of the fact that LaTourette had “disclosed a client’s confidence while working as a law clerk.” A Committee on Character hearing panel recommended that LaTourette be granted admission on condition that he not engage in solo practice for one year unless supervised by an attorney approved by the Committee on Character.
The case then came before the Statewide Panel of the Committee on Character. By a split vote, with two members of the Statewide Panel dissenting, the Panel recommended that certification be withheld. The Supreme Court issued an order to show cause requiring LaTourette to show why certification should not be withheld. The Court ultimately upheld the Statewide Panel’s recommendation.
After an “independent review of the record,” the Court found clear and convincing evidence that LaTourette lacked the current character and fitness required to practice law. Though “his credit litigation may have been justified, his intemperate exchanges with Bar Examiners personnel and his litigation against the Bar Examiners and his law school demonstrated an unwillingness to accept any personal responsibility for his difficulties.” LaTourette had filed several Bar-related lawsuits. One of those cases, in which he sued his law school, blamed the law school’s failure of performance for LaTourette’s repeated failure to pass the Bar examination. Another, against the Bar Examiners, sought to strike down the requirement of passing a Bar examination before one may practice law. All of the Bar-related lawsuits were dismissed summarily, leading the Court to view them as “bordering on the frivolous” and in bad faith.
LaTourette did not endear himself by the way he related to the Board of Bar Examiners either. In a letter to the Board, he said that all of the Board’s communications were “marked by petty cruelty.” He charged that a court order requiring him to pay the Bar examination fee was a “fraud and deceit,” and he claimed that the Board had committed acts of “purposeful harassment and cruelty.” He also “surreptitiously recorded conversations with Bar Examiners personnel.” All that showed “such marked disrespect for judicial personnel, procedures and institutions as to belie a fidelity to the administration of justice.” Since such fidelity is a keystone for attorneys, certification was withheld.
Bar applicants are understandably very emotionally invested in the Bar application process. But too much passion, misdirected as anger at the Court’s arms and the Bar admission process, can be fatal to admission. The Court here cited In re McLaughlin, 144 N.J. 133 (1996), in which another Bar applicant was denied admission where he likewise severely mistreated Bar admission personnel.
Attorneys are expected to temper the behavior, even when things are not going their way. Moderation of behavior is especially important in dealing with judicial personnel, and the need to conduct oneself appropriately attaches even before admission to the Bar. In re LaTourette should remind all Bar applicants that it is all too easy to throw away nineteen or more years of education and passage of a Bar examination by inappropriate conduct in the Bar application process. Dealing professionally in that process takes away one potential reason for certification to be withheld.