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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT