Felons and attorneys

July 9, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The newest crop of law school graduates are about to take the July bar exam, except for the ones who are convicted felons.

You can’t be a felon and a lawyer in Indiana but if you are already an attorney and commit a felony, you could keep your license.

It doesn’t make sense to me.

Based on Admission and Discipline Rule 12, anyone convicted of a felony “prima facie” shall be deemed lacking good moral character. As you know, you must have good moral character to join the bar. Possibly there have been exceptions to this, but I imagine it’s a high standard to overcome to prove to the character and fitness committee that your felony record won’t affect your ability to be a lawyer.

What if you committed the felony when you were 18 and you are now 30? You’ve paid your time and in the grand scheme of felonies, it was minor and won’t affect your ability to practice law. I guess you’ll have to prove it.

Something must happen once you become a lawyer because if you don’t have a felony in your past, but commit one while an attorney, you could still remain an attorney. Chances are you’ll be suspended, or disbarred if it’s bad enough, but attorneys who commit felonies can retain their admission to the bar.

Why do the standards for good moral character change? If having a felony deems you “prima facie” lacking in good moral character, shouldn’t being convicted of one while an attorney “prima facie” mean automatic disbarment, and shouldn’t the burden of proof be on the felonious lawyer to prove he/she should get to keep his/her law license? The fact that it’s not this way smells like a double standard to me.

But attorney discipline is fluid and it’s hard to concretely say that “if you do X you’ll receive Y as a punishment.” A lot depends on agreements between the lawyer and the Disciplinary Commission. Sometimes attorneys who appear to have committed more serious offenses are given the same or lesser punishment than one who appears to have committed a less serious offense. But that’s the nature of our disciplinary process. What do you think?
 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • It is a rigged system
    For proof see how they processed this 12 year attorney from Kansas, admitted to the SCOTUS, cleared by the National Board of Law Examiners, no felonies, one misdemeanor 20 years ago, reference from federal judge William C. Lee .... but politically incorrect due to my religious faith and thus denied "good moral character" or fitness or for some reason. Rotten in Denmark.

    www.archangelinstitute.org (see Orwell post)

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. by the time anybody gets to such files they will probably have been totally vacuumed anyways. they're pros at this at universities. anything to protect their incomes. Still, a laudable attempt. Let's go for throat though: how about the idea of unionizing football college football players so they can get a fair shake for their work? then if one of the players is a pain in the neck cut them loose instead of protecting them. if that kills the big programs, great, what do they have to do with learning anyways? nada. just another way for universities to rake in the billions even as they skate from paying taxes with their bogus "nonprofit" status.

  2. Um the affidavit from the lawyer is admissible, competent evidence of reasonableness itself. And anybody who had done law work in small claims court would not have blinked at that modest fee. Where do judges come up with this stuff? Somebody is showing a lack of experience and it wasn't the lawyers

  3. My children were taken away a year ago due to drugs, and u struggled to get things on track, and now that I have been passing drug screens for almost 6 months now and not missing visits they have already filed to take my rights away. I need help.....I can't loose my babies. Plz feel free to call if u can help. Sarah at 765-865-7589

  4. Females now rule over every appellate court in Indiana, and from the federal southern district, as well as at the head of many judicial agencies. Give me a break, ladies! Can we men organize guy-only clubs to tell our sob stories about being too sexy for our shirts and not being picked for appellate court openings? Nope, that would be sexist! Ah modernity, such a ball of confusion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmRsWdK0PRI

  5. LOL thanks Jennifer, thanks to me for reading, but not reading closely enough! I thought about it after posting and realized such is just what was reported. My bad. NOW ... how about reporting who the attorneys were raking in the Purdue alum dollars?

ADVERTISEMENT