This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The applicant, a former physician with a history of criminal convictions, professional misconduct, and dishonesty, sought admission to the New Mexico Bar. His background included felony convictions for drug-related offenses, revocation of medical licenses, allegations of perjury, and numerous civil disputes. Despite completing legal education and applying for bar admission in multiple jurisdictions, his applications were denied due to concerns about his moral character and fitness to practice law (paras 2-19).
Procedural History
- Washington State Bar, 1996: The applicant's admission was denied due to findings of dishonesty, fraud, and lack of good moral character (para 13).
- New Mexico Board of Bar Examiners, 1998: The applicant's first application for admission to the New Mexico Bar was denied based on similar concerns about his character and fitness (paras 20-21).
Parties' Submissions
- Applicant: Argued that he had been rehabilitated, presented testimony from his psychologist, and claimed procedural deficiencies in the Board's investigation. He also challenged the constitutionality of the "good moral character" standard and the assessment of attorney fees against him (paras 30-31, 33, 39, 42).
- Board of Bar Examiners: Asserted that the applicant failed to demonstrate good moral character and continued to engage in deceptive conduct. The Board defended the adequacy of its procedures and the constitutionality of the moral character standard (paras 24-25, 31-32, 34).
Legal Issues
- Was the applicant of good moral character and fit to practice law in New Mexico?
- Were the administrative procedures used by the Board of Bar Examiners adequate?
- Is the "good moral character" standard constitutional?
- Was the assessment of attorney fees against the applicant permissible?
Disposition
- The applicant was denied admission to the New Mexico Bar (para 48).
- The assessment of attorney fees against the applicant was rejected, and the matter was remanded to the Board to modify its assessment of reasonable expenses (paras 47-48).
Reasons
Per Bosson J. (Chávez CJ., Minzner, Serna, and Maes JJ. concurring):
Moral Character and Fitness: The applicant failed to meet the burden of proving good moral character and rehabilitation. His history of dishonesty, unlawful conduct, and lack of respect for the law outweighed any evidence of rehabilitation. The applicant's omissions and misrepresentations during the admissions process further undermined his credibility (paras 24-25, 30-31, 35).
Administrative Procedures: The Board's procedures complied with due process requirements. The applicant was given adequate notice, opportunities to present evidence, and multiple continuances. The Board's investigation was thorough and fair (paras 31-32).
Constitutionality of the Standard: The "good moral character" standard was upheld as constitutional. It has a rational connection to the applicant's fitness to practice law and is consistent with established legal principles. The applicant's comparison to other cases, such as Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, was found to be inapplicable (paras 33-36).
Attorney Fees: The Court found no express authority in the rules allowing the Board to assess attorney fees for its counsel. While reasonable expenses related to investigations and hearings are permissible, attorney fees were excluded. The matter was remanded to the Board to reassess costs consistent with this interpretation (paras 42-47).