1.1.1Admission requirements and good moral character

State supreme courts decide who may practice within their borders. Every admission requirement must rationally connect to fitness to practice; the applicant bears the burden of proving fitness.

A law license hands one person real power over another's money, liberty, and family, and a client has no practical way to inspect that power before trusting it. Someone has to look first. Screening for competence and character at the door is far cheaper than discovering the problem after a client has already been hurt.

A state may condition admission on legal education, the bar exam and MPRE, MCLE (mandatory continuing legal education), and good moral character, but a citizenship requirement is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause (In re Griffiths), and a residency requirement, whether it demands years in state or merely living there on admission day, fails the Privileges and Immunities Clause unless the state shows a substantial reason closely tied to the rule, which no state has yet done (Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper). Character review reaches all past conduct bearing on honesty or integrity, needs no criminal conviction, and weighs demonstrated rehabilitation. A denied applicant gets a due-process hearing and review by the highest state court.

Admission requirements (no single Model Rule)

Four points on permissible requirements, and the fourth is the one this section unpacks:

• completion of legal education;
• passage of the bar examination and MPRE;
• completion of MCLE requirements;
• demonstration of good moral character.

Two points on impermissible requirements:

• a citizenship requirement is unconstitutional (Griffiths);
• a residency requirement fails the Privileges and Immunities Clause unless the state shows a substantial reason closely tied to it, which none has (Piper).

Four points on the scope of moral-character review, and the fourth is where moral turpitude enters:

• all past conduct bearing on honesty or integrity is relevant;
• no criminal conviction is required to raise a character concern;
• demonstrated rehabilitation is part of the analysis;
• a conviction involving moral turpitude or violence may support denial.

Moral turpitude includes: lying, fraud, perjury, forgery, theft, violence, extreme recklessness, and sex offenses involving force, minors, or abuse of a position of trust; Rule 8.4 Comment [2] warns that offenses touching only private morality between consenting adults have no specific connection to fitness to practice.

Moral turpitude does not include: negligent acts; purely unintentional conduct.

Three points on political beliefs, and the third is the long one:

• political beliefs alone don't disqualify;
• exception: refusal to swear allegiance to the Constitution — an independent ground for denial;
• exception: joining a group whose illegal conduct the applicant knows about, coupled with a specific intent to advance that conduct — bare membership alone won't suffice.

Two points on debt, and they point opposite ways:

• debt alone never disqualifies;
• ignoring obligations with no reasonable effort to pay reflects negatively on character.

Two points on the procedure for denied applicants, in that order:

• due-process hearing before an admissions committee;
• review by the highest state court.