The Director for Moral Character

Esq.

by Victoria Schelsinger | June 2012

Comment

Reprint

If ever there was an eyebrow-raising job title, it must be the Director for Moral Character Determinations. The position could be straight out of J. K. Rowling's Ministry of Magic, but instead it belongs to the State Bar Examiners' gatekeeper of character and fitness screening, a job with responsibilities that are anything but fictional.

When seeking admission to the State Bar of California, every applicant must pass the bar examination and submit an Application for Determination of Moral Character. (See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6060(b). Under the rules, "good moral character" includes but is not limited to "qualities of honesty, fairness, candor, trustworthiness, observance of fiduciary responsibility, respect for and obedience to the law, and respect for the rights of others and the judicial process." (Cal. St. Bar Rule 4.40(B).)

Identifying the Bad Eggs California Bar Applicants Get Screened for Moral Fitness
	8,256 Applicants for Moral Character Determination, 2011
	257 Number referred for review
	35 Number deemed lacking in fitness

Since January 2000, these applications have landed on the desk of Debra Murphy Lawson. With help from her team of moral character analysts (they really are called that), the one-time business litigator scours and verifies the details of each applicant's life. If the inspection turns up problems with an applicant - a criminal record, history of substance abuse, or acts of deceit - the application is forwarded for review to the Subcommittee on Moral Character Determinations of the Committee of Bar Examiners. (Despite much prodding and an invitation to grant California Lawyer an interview, Lawson declined.)

Reader Comments

Comment by Richard Fine - June 6, 2012
The question is who needs their moral character investigated? I suggest the State Bar should direct its attention to the moral character and fitness of its own Office of Chief Trial Counsel, the State Bar Judges and the California Supreme Court who oversee "moral character and fitness" of the State Bar members. As shown below, their actions would not pass any such investigation. On February 6,2006, the Office of Chief Trial Counsel filed false charges against me for "moral turpitude" based only on documents filed in court cases which are protected by the First Amendment. On September 28, 2008, State Bar Review Department recommended my disbarment on false charges for "moral turpitude". On March 25, 2009, the California Supreme Court's deial of my Petition for Review became final. On August 30, 2011, the State Bar admitted in 9th Cir. Appeal No. 11-56522 that I was disbarred because of "his personal crusade against such benefits [illegal payments to Superior Court judges from counties] (mostly through frivolous lawsuits, which is why he was disbarred.)" No such charges were ever made in the February 6, 2006 Notice of Disciplinary Charges. No court ever held any lawsuit that I filed against any judge challenging the illegal payments from counties to be frivolous. On December 4, 2011, I filed a motion to set aside the void 2009 disbarment in the California Supreme Court in Case No. S 168418. The motion was based upon the State Bar's admission that the disbarment was a fraud because I was disbarred for a reason for which I was never charged. The State Bar did not oppose the motion. CRC Rule 8.54(c) states that if a motion is not opposed it may be deemed that the party has consented to granting the motion. The California Supreme Court still refused to grant the motion, despite no opposition from the State Bar. The question is who needs their moral character investigated?

Comment by Ronald Pierce - June 23, 2012
"I suggest the State Bar should direct its attention to the moral character and fitness of its own Office of Chief Trial Counsel, the State Bar Judges and the California Supreme Court who oversee "moral character and fitness" of the State Bar members." As a matter of fact, the recent CaliforniaALL scandal has caused the termination of several State Bar members (http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2011/07/07/state-bar-swift-firing-of-bad-apples-russell-weiner-victoria-regina-molloy-djinna-gochis-nancy-watson-all-dismissed-11440782/). Yet the media continues to report on anything but the obvious cancer in California's judicial governance.

Add your Comment

California Lawyer reserves the right to delete any letter at its discretion; we may remove letters that are off-topic, crude or vulgar, are of low quality or that violate the law or common decency. California Lawyer also reserves the right to edit any letter for use in its print publication. By posting a comment, California Lawyer does not necessarily endorse the views expressed.