Greenberg, Application of, SB-190
Decision Date | 08 July 1980 |
Docket Number | No. SB-190,SB-190 |
Citation | 614 P.2d 832,126 Ariz. 290 |
Parties | In the Matter of the Application of Jeffrey H. GREENBERG To be admitted as a Member of the State Bar of Arizona. |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Slutes, Browning, Zlaket & Sakrison by William D. Browning, Tucson, for petitioner.
James W. Stuehringer, Tucson, for respondent.
This matter is before the Supreme Court on a Petition for Review, asking that the court determine that the applicant possesses the requisite good moral character for admission to the State Bar of Arizona. On February 6, 1980 the Committee on Character and Fitness made findings and concluded that it was unable to recommend the applicant for admission.
In July 1975 applicant took and passed the Bar examination. After a character investigation had commenced, he withdrew his application in January of 1976. Thereafter, in April of 1979 applicant reapplied for admission and a hearing was held on December 15, 1979 before the Character and Fitness Committee. The hearing lasted one full day.
The evidence presented at the December 15, 1979 hearing indicates the following factual background. Applicant arrived in Tucson with his wife in July 1972 to attend the University of Arizona Law College. Shortly thereafter, he became involved in selling marihuana to friends in the eastern part of the United States. This involvement continued for something over six months and netted applicant a profit of $6,500 to $8,000.
In his testimony at the hearing before the Committee, applicant indicated that he stopped dealing in marihuana because it was inconsistent with his desire to become a lawyer. He considered marihuana illegal but not immoral.
The applicant did well in law school, was chairman of the Appellate Advocacy Board, and received an award for outstanding contribution to the law school. In January of 1975 he submitted an application for admission to the Bar.
Thereafter, on September 2, 1975 applicant was asked to meet with two members of the Committee to discuss his involvement in selling marihuana. He was told of his right to counsel but he did not engage counsel and, at the meeting, denied under oath the allegations.
After this meeting, applicant, realizing the possibility of federal indictment, hired counsel. As previously indicated, the application for admission was withdrawn.
In the spring of 1979, following his reapplication to be admitted, he had a discussion with bar counsel with whom he was friendly. The bar counsel asked him if his position would be different from that asserted at the meeting in 1975 with the Committee wherein he denied involvement with marihuana. Applicant indicated that his position had not changed.
In addition to the marihuana transactions, applicant had another problem. In 1973 he had no income other than the profits from the illegal transactions and he had filed no tax return. He had been contacted by the Internal Revenue Service but he ignored their inquiries.
In late September or early October the applicant contacted his current counsel. Thereafter a decision to file an income tax return was made, and applicant made his decision to admit his involvement in marihuana transactions. The income tax return was filed in December of 1979.
A number of character witnesses came forward to testify on behalf of the applicant, including a Tucson lawyer for whom he has worked as a law clerk since October 1976. Other attorneys who were or had been in law enforcement and a superior court judge testified.
In his brief the applicant states the following to be the issues presented by his Petition for Review:
It is an applicant's burden to establish his good moral character. Application of Levine, 97 Ariz. 88, 397 P.2d 205 (1964). When an applicant fails to convince the Committee on Character and Fitness of his good moral character, the Committee has a duty not to certify his name to this court for admission. Application of Levine, supra. On Petition for Review to this court the decision as to an applicant's good moral character must be made by this court on an ad hoc basis. Application of Ronwin, 113 Ariz. 357, 555 P.2d 315 (1976).
In the past this court has wrestled with the concept of good moral character. The applicant concedes that at the time of the original application in 1975 he lacked the requisite good moral...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Adamson v. Ricketts
... ... 13-703; and (3) the application of McMillan v. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court's most recent pronouncement on the distinction ... ...
-
State v. Gretzler
... ... at 255-56, 96 S.Ct. at 2968, 49 L.Ed.2d at 925 ... The application of such a provision may be constitutionally infirm for either of two reasons. First, a state's ... ...
-
State v. Richmond
... ... in this country--rules that some would argue are increasingly incapable of consistent application ... This time, the United States Supreme Court has returned Richmond's case for ... ...
- State v. Sansing