More frequent fitness exams?

December 10, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
When you decided to become an attorney, one of the last steps you took was standing before the Board of Law Examiners Committee on Character and Fitness, which determined whether you should be admitted to the bar.

Attorneys deemed to have “good” moral character and fitness, as defined by Rule 12 for admission to the bar, go on to practice law in Indiana as long as they meet all the other requirements.

Chances are that’s the last time you had anyone evaluate your physical and mental suitability. But what if you had to have your character and fitness evaluated periodically throughout your legal career in order to maintain your license?

Attorneys, like a lot of professions, must take classes to continue to be in good standing. Why shouldn’t lawyers undergo evaluations by mental-health professionals and doctors to make sure you are still up to task for the job? After all, a lot can change after you first were admitted. It’s no secret attorneys are under a lot of stress, and stress can take its toll on people’s bodies and minds in various ways.

If attorneys were periodically evaluated, some of the issues that we read about in attorney disciplinary cases could possibly be prevented. Attorneys could seek help before a serious problem developed.

What about a requirement that if you want to be a judge, you have to have your character and fitness examined before running or applying for that post? Even though judges going through the appointment process sort of do this already, surely there is information that isn’t divulged to the judicial nominating commission. A confidential interview with a health professional could provide the nominating commission with a simple yes or no as to whether this person should be a judge. No other specifics would need to be divulged.

Just like the character and fitness test you took as a student, the ones you would take as an adult would be confidential. If it turns out you need further tests or meetings with health professionals, then so be it. You’d be able to treat the problem before it interferes with your work, and as long as it doesn’t interfere with your work, no one else would have to know. Because once you do something to violate the rules of professional conduct, it’s out in the open for anyone to find with a few simple clicks on the court’s Web site.
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Yes, more exams!!!
  • Anyone conservative who thinks this a good idea better think again.
    Here is why: http://news.ibj.com/ilemg/ILEmails/2009_12_10_ILDaily_Standard/Articles/5068.htm?1=1&EGEmailID=754&PublicationID=1&PublicationDesc=Indiana%20Lawyer%20Daily&EmailType=Standard

    See the pleadings against JLAP posted here: http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2009/12/federal-lawsuit-charges-indiana-lawyer.html
  • A really bad idea
    Now that we see political correctness and government control and the Left's misuse of power just about everywhere around us, does anyone with a modicum of reason think the above is a good idea?
  • no way !!
    I am on meds for anxiety. It is really not a problem for me at this point but I have no desire to talk it over with some stranger. Likewise as other people have noted these "exams" can be abused to screen out people for arbitrary capricious reasons including "political correctness." Alexander Solzehnitsyn talked about the abuse of mental health services for political purposes and I do not think we are above it here in the USA.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT