In re Admission to Bar of Com.

Decision Date01 June 2005
PartiesIn The Matter Of An Application For ADMISSION TO The BAR OF The COMMONWEALTH.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Kenneth B. Krohn, pro se.

Edward J. Barshak, Boston, for Board of Bar Examiners.

Present: MARSHALL, C.J., GREANEY, IRELAND, SPINA, COWIN, SOSMAN, & CORDY, JJ.

BY THE COURT.

In 1996, Kenneth B. Krohn (petitioner), applied for admission to the Massachusetts bar. Because the petitioner had been convicted of two felonies, the Board of Bar Examiners (board) conducted an investigation. By a three-to-two vote, the board declined to recommend the petitioner for admission to the bar. The petitioner appealed to a single justice, who reserved and reported the matter to the full court. Because we conclude that the petitioner, by his submissions, including his submissions to this court, has failed to satisfy his burden of proving that he is currently fit to practice law, we deny his application for admission to the bar.

Facts and procedural background. In 1977, the petitioner pleaded guilty, in Federal court, to two felonies, conspiracy and extortion. His convictions were brought to the board's attention through a personal statement submitted with a letter of support to the board from an associate dean of his law school.1 Consequently, the board investigated his fitness for admission to the bar.2 The board held hearings3 at which the petitioner testified.

The petitioner testified before the board that a Mexican national (victim) had swindled him out of a large sum of money in the early 1970's, at a time when the petitioner was living in Mexico under the alias Henry Blackwell. The petitioner was charged with kidnapping but pleaded guilty to the lesser offenses. At his plea hearing, he admitted that he and another individual used a false identity to lure the victim to Dulles International Airport for purposes of extorting the money.4 The petitioner admitted that his co-conspirator met the victim at the airport and took him to a car "rented by [the petitioner], using [a] ... credit card" under another false name. The victim was taken to an apartment in Maryland that had been rented and "coerced to write approximately seven letters to member of [the victim's] family." The letters were in the victim's handwriting and had the petitioner's fingerprints on them. The letters instructed various persons to dismiss a lawsuit the victim had instituted against the petitioner, and to transfer assets to the petitioner (i.e., Henry Blackwell). As part of the plea, the government agreed not to prosecute the petitioner for any other crimes related to the case and the petitioner expected to serve approximately three and one-half years in prison. The petitioner was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment and he served approximately three years of his sentence.5

These felonies are very serious and were, one may fairly conclude, committed as retribution for a wrong perpetrated on the petitioner by the victim. At the time the petitioner committed the crimes, in 1973, he was thirty-five years old, and held a master's degree and a doctorate from Harvard University, which he earned in the 1960's. His doctorate is in mathematics. He was accomplished in his field. He coauthored a computer science theory that was published in a textbook. He had owned, and sold at a profit, his own computer business, making him financially secure. He also owned property in Washington, D.C. See Matter of Prager, 422 Mass. 86, 96, 661 N.E.2d 84 (1996) (admission to bar denied despite board recommendation for admission; at time applicant committed felonies, he was mature, well educated, and possessed adequate financial resources).

The petitioner submitted numerous letters in support of his application for admission, each of which attested to his present good character, including his generous devotion of time to helping others.6 One supportive letter was from a law professor who supervised the petitioner's field work and also testified on his behalf at his hearing before the board. Two labor law attorneys also wrote letters stating that the petitioner's representation (while he was a law school student) of an employee of the Polaroid Corporation during a proceeding involving the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) (discussed infra) resulted in a determination that a company union was illegal, and both letters praised the petitioner's contribution to the community. The petitioner also called character witnesses at his hearing, who stated that they believed that he had a good character.

The board issued a report on October 8, 2003.7 The board gave the petitioner "the benefit of the doubt in respect of his criminal and litigation history."8 However, based on a letter that the petitioner sent to counsel for the Polaroid Corporation during a dispute involving the NLRB matter and on two of the petitioner's submissions to the board, the board listed sixteen instances of conduct that caused it concern.9 10 In his submissions to the board, the petitioner accused the board of bad faith and misrepresentation, accused pro bono counsel for the board of bad faith, attacked the legal system in general, and the character of Federal officials who were involved in his criminal case in particular.

All members of the board agreed with the findings set forth in the board's report, but they disagreed over whether the findings concerning the petitioner's conduct supported the conclusion that he possessed a serious character flaw, rendering him unfit to practice law. The dissenters stated that the petitioner's memorandum and objections, however offensive, represented a temporary "siege mentality," and the "uncomely hubristic aspect of his personality" did not render him unfit.

Standard for admission to the bar. The right to practice law "is a peculiar privilege granted ... to those who demonstrate special fitness in intellectual attainment and in moral character." Matter of Prager, 422 Mass. 86, 101, 661 N.E.2d 84 (1996), quoting Matter of Keenan, 314 Mass. 544, 546-547, 50 N.E.2d 785 (1943). "The license to practice law may not be withheld arbitrarily or discriminatorily." Matter of Prager, supra at 90, 661 N.E.2d 84.

"The commission of a felony is... conclusive evidence of lack of good moral character at the time of the offense," id. at 91-92, 661 N.E.2d 84, but a "prior conviction is not an absolute bar to admission ... [if the applicant can make] a showing of present moral fitness." Id. at 91, 661 N.E.2d 84. An applicant who has been convicted of a felony must prove sufficiently "the requisite moral qualifications," thereby showing that being allowed to practice would not be "detrimental to the integrity of the bar, the administration of justice, or the public interest." Id. at 93, 661 N.E.2d 84, citing S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 18(5), as amended, 394 Mass. 1106 (1985).11 See Matter of an Application for Admission to the Bar, 431 Mass. 678, 681, 729 N.E.2d 1085 (2000). "Any significant doubts about an applicant's character should be resolved in favor of protecting the public by denying admission to the applicant." Matter of Prager, supra at 100, 661 N.E.2d 84, quoting Matter of Jaffee, 319 Or. 172, 177, 874 P.2d 1299 (1994).

Attorneys must conduct themselves in such a way that they dedicate themselves to the peaceful settlement of disputes and respect the role of courts in the administration of justice. See In re Snyder, 472 U.S. 634, 644-645, 105 S.Ct. 2874, 86 L.Ed.2d 504 (1985); Law Students Civil Rights Research Council, Inc. v. Wadmond, 401 U.S. 154, 166, 91 S.Ct. 720, 27 L.Ed.2d 749 (1971). "`[R]estraint in dealing with others is obligatory conduct for attorneys....' `The profession's insistence that counsel show restraint, self-discipline, and a sense of reality in dealing with courts [and] other counsel ... is based on the knowledge that civilized, rational behavior is essential [for the judicial system to function].... [H]abitual unreasonable reaction to adverse rulings ... is [unacceptable conduct in a lawyer]. What cannot be permitted in lawyers, cannot be tolerated in those applying for admissions as lawyers.'" In re Application of Converse, 258 Neb. 159, 170, 602 N.W.2d 500 (1999), quoting In re Appeal of Lane, 249 Neb. 499, 511, 513, 544 N.W.2d 367 (1996). Moreover, a practicing attorney who includes "disrespectful and irrelevant passages" and "allegations ... totally without record support" may be subject to sanctions. Avery v. Steele, 414 Mass. 450, 451, 456, 608 N.E.2d 1014 (1993). If an attorney's client is responsible for inappropriate material being submitted to a court, the client also may be subject to sanctions. Id. at 456, 608 N.E.2d 1014.

Discussion. "While deference is given to the decision of the board, this court retains ultimate authority to decide a person's fitness to practice law in the Commonwealth." Matter of Prager, supra at 91, 661 N.E.2d 84. See note 7, supra; Wei Jia v. Board of Bar Examiners, 427 Mass. 777, 782-783, 696 N.E.2d 131 (1998). See also G.L. c. 221, § 37.

We have reviewed all the documents in the record and all submissions to this court and are left with significant doubts concerning the petitioner's character and fitness to practice law. Matter of Prager, supra at 100, 661 N.E.2d 84. Accordingly, we conclude that the petitioner has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that his admission to the bar would not be "detrimental to the integrity of the bar, the administration of justice, or the public interest." Id. at 93, 661 N.E.2d 84, citing S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 18(5).12 See In re Application of Converse, supra at 170-171, 602 N.W.2d 500, quoting In re Appeal of Lane, supra at 511, 544 N.W.2d 367. However, before we begin our discussion of the reason for our conclusion, we address an error the board made in admitting evidence concerning the petitioner's convictions.

Initially, the board decided...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Kobrin v. Board of Registration in Medicine
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 11 Agosto 2005
    ...no right to "disprove" finding of negligence and professional incompetence before board). See also Matter of an Application for Admission to the Bar, 444 Mass. 393, 399, 828 N.E.2d 484 (2005) (board erred in allowing applicant for bar admission, who pleaded guilty to felonies, to present ev......
  • Mullane v. Mass. Bd. of Bar Examiners
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • 10 Septiembre 2021
    ... ... resolving the motion to dismiss ... On May ... 9, 2019, Mullane petitioned for admission to the ... Massachusetts bar. D. 16 ¶ 8. Wellington, the Executive ... Director of the BBE, and the BBE reviewed Mullane's ... courts of the Commonwealth, ” which expressly provide ... venue for such challenges); see In re Admission to Bar of ... Com. , 444 Mass. 393, 399 n.14 (2005) (considering due ... process argument of applicant denied admission to ... Massachusetts bar); see ... ...
  • Porter v. Bd. of Bar Exam'rs
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 22 Abril 2022
    ...in such a way that they dedicate themselves to the peaceful settlement of disputes." Matter of an Application for Admission to the Bar of the Commonwealth, 444 Mass. 393, 398, 828 N.E.2d 484 (2005). See Rule V.1 of the Rules of the Board of Bar Examiners. Porter's recounting of the events i......
  • Strigler v. Board of Bar Examiners
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 11 Abril 2007
    ...should be resolved in favor of protecting the public by denying admission to the applicant." Matter of an Application for Admission to the Bar, 444 Mass. 393, 397, 828 N.E.2d 484 (2005), quoting Matter of Prager, supra at 100, 661 N.E.2d Candor with the board is essential. "It is the obliga......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT