Friedman v. Connecticut Bar Examining Committee, SC 17049 (Conn. 12/16/2003)

• Decision Date: 16 December 2003
• Docket Number: SC 17049
• Parties: DAVID A. FRIEDMAN <I>v.</I> CONNECTICUT BAR EXAMINING COMMITTEE
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

Page 1

DAVID A. FRIEDMANv.

CONNECTICUT BAR EXAMINING COMMITTEE

SC 17049

Supreme Court of Connecticut

December 16, 2003

The following appeals are pending on the Supreme Court's docket and are in the process of being briefed.

Attorneys; Bar Admission Proceedings; Whether State Bar Examining Committee Denied Petitioner Due Process in Finding that Petitioner Lacked Requisite Good Moral Character to Practice Law Because he Cheated on a Law School Examination. While the petitioner was a student at Quinnipiac College School of Law, the student discipline committee concluded that he had used unauthorized materials during a closed book examination. A dean of the law school reversed that decision on the ground that the petitioner's defense may have been prejudiced as a result of excessive delays in notifying him of the charges and in holding a hearing. After the petitioner passed the bar examination, the respondent decided not to recommend him for admission to the bar on the ground that he had "perpetrated a falsehood upon the academic process at Quinnipiac." The petitioner then filed a petition with the Superior Court for admission to the bar, which the court denied. On appeal (77 Conn. App. 526), the petitioner argued, among other things, that the respondent's findings were not based on a fair investigation of the facts because the respondent did not make an independent inquiry to determine the contents of the alleged "crib sheet" and to decide whether the delays identified by the law school dean prejudiced the petitioner's defense. He further claimed that, because he had established a prima facie case of good moral character, the respondent was required to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that he lacked good moral character. The Appellate Court rejected the petitioner's claims and affirmed the trial court's judgment. In so ruling, the court concluded that because the petitioner carried the ultimate burden of proving good character, the respondent was under no obligation to determine the contents of the "crib sheet" or to investigate whether the delays prejudiced his case. With regard to the petitioner's claim that he had established a prima facie case of good moral character, the court stated, among other things, that there was no finding in the proceedings below that he had made out such a case and, in any event, the clear and convincing standard does not apply to bar admission proceedings. In this appeal, the Supreme Court will decide whether...