In re Anderson
| Decision Date | 21 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 19-353,19-353 |
| Parties | IN RE Michael ANDERSON (OFFICE OF ATTORNEY LICENSING) |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Andrew R. Strauss, Office of Attorney Licensing, Burlington, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Michael B. Anderson, Pro Se, Valparaiso, Indiana, Respondent-Appellee.
PRESENT: Reiber, C.J., Robinson, Eaton, Carroll and Cohen, JJ.
¶ 1. Following a hearing by a three-member panel, the Character and Fitness Committee certified applicant Michael Anderson's good moral character to practice law. Pursuant to Vermont Rule of Admission 18(c), the Court ordered review on its own motion. On appeal, applicant, representing himself, argues that the Committee's decision should be affirmed because the Committee adequately performed its duty to investigate his good moral character "thoroughly, fairly, and impartially." We conclude that the Committee failed to provide sufficient factual findings to support its decision to certify applicant's good moral character. After conducting our own review of the record, we conclude that applicant has failed to demonstrate his good moral character.
¶ 2. In November 2018, while a student at Valparaiso University Law School in Indiana, applicant applied for admission to the Vermont Bar. As required for admission, applicant submitted a character and fitness application to the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE). Question 33 of the character and fitness application asked if an applicant had "ever been a named party to any civil action." Applicant listed four civil actions where he was a named party.
¶ 3. In one of these civil actions, applicant wrote that he sued his law school because it would not reimburse him for pizza he bought for a school-sponsored Easter party. Applicant explained that the law school did not dispute that he spent the money but would not reimburse him because he did not have the original receipt. According to applicant, the school initially tried to "bully" him into dropping the suit but eventually wrote a check to the court clerk in the amount of costs and the case was dismissed.
¶ 4. Question 35 asked whether an applicant had ever been "cited for, arrested for, charged with, or convicted of any violation of any law." Applicant listed five criminal matters. In two instances he was charged, but the charges were later dropped. Applicant described the three remaining criminal matters as follows. In August 2007, he pleaded guilty to interfering with a 911 call. In March 2011, applicant was charged with public intoxication because, as he described it, he was "drunk and argumentative" at a music festival and "deserved it." Finally, in August 2018, while applicant was in law school, he was charged with misdemeanor theft for taking a flag from a display at a county courthouse. He provided the following explanation for the incident:
¶ 5. Question 37 asked whether an applicant had "been cited for, arrested for, charged with, or convicted of any moving traffic violation during the past ten years." Applicant listed six traffic violations. Finally, under question 47, which allowed an applicant "to provide additional information or further explain any ... previous responses," applicant provided the following:
¶ 6. Applicant graduated from law school in December 2018 and subsequently passed the Vermont Bar Exam. The following June, a member of the Committee reviewed applicant's application for admission to the Vermont Bar, which included the character and fitness report prepared by the NCBE. The reviewing Committee member declined to certify applicant's good moral character for three reasons. First, citing applicant's previous traffic violations and criminal charges, the committee member found it "unlikely" that applicant would be able to conform to the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, which govern the ethical conduct of licensed attorneys. Second, the committee member concluded that the record strongly suggested the possibility of a substance-abuse issue that could potentially injure applicant's future clients and also lead to violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Finally, the Committee member expressed concern about applicant's ability to conduct himself in a professional manner:
[Applicant]’s record demonstrates an inability to conduct himself professionally and in a manner that engenders respect for the law when in situations involving conflict. As exemplified by his dealings with his law school [and the police], when [applicant] is involved in a dispute in which he feels he is in the right, he becomes confrontational, combative, rude, swearing, and insulting. Moreover, counsel for the law school, after resolving a dispute with [applicant] involving reimbursement for expenses, went so far as to suggest that [applicant] had filed a frivolous lawsuit against the school for the sole purpose of harassing the school. While [applicant] may have had justifiable issues with his law school, his inability to conduct himself professionally during the resolution of those issues strongly suggests that, when faced with legal conflict inside and outside of the courtroom as an attorney, [applicant] will not be able to conduct himself without obstructing the administration of justice and will not be able to abide by the Rules of Professional Conduct.
¶ 7. Pursuant to Vermont Rule of Admission 16(e)(2), a hearing was scheduled before a three-member panel and applicant, representing himself, submitted a brief arguing that his "past reveal[ed] that he [would] almost certainly be an excellent, ethical lawyer." Applicant identified the following positive factors that he claimed "completely mitigate[d] any credible claims that [his] relatively few misdeeds in the past might make him ‘unlikely’ to be an ethical attorney"—his employment history, driving record, good credit, charity work, and the honesty and consistency of his answers. With regard to the last factor, applicant gave the following explanation:
[Applicant]’s application, the NCBE report, supporting documents, and the character and fitness disclosures made to Valparaiso University all match. ... Moreover, [applicant]’s explanations of his interactions with the legal system lack embellishment. When he was innocent, he has explained what happened, and the records back him up thoroughly. When he was guilty, he has admitted it and taken what steps he could to make things right.
Applicant also cited the following factors that he argued were "either irrelevant, or amount to neutral" when understood in context: substance abuse, failure to follow police instructions, interfering with a 911 phone call and other criminal charges from Minnesota, and the lawsuit against his law school.
¶ 8. With regard to applicant's failure to follow police instructions, he acknowledged that he refused to comply with a police instruction to place an American flag on the ground. He asserted, however, that he did not regret refusing to put the flag on the ground because "[s]uch an order is in derogation of the United States Flag Code, and Indiana statute." Regarding the lawsuit against his law school, applicant argued that he filed the appropriate paperwork along with a credit-card statement showing the expense and the vendor. The school declined to reimburse him for the pizza, explaining that it needed a receipt. Applicant explained that he did not have the original receipt and thought that asking for a duplicate receipt was inappropriate because in his experience obtaining duplicate receipts was associated with dishonest conduct. Applicant argued that he thought the "high road" was to file a cause of action in small-claims court and explained the proceeding events:
On May 11th, [the school's general counsel] wrote a patronizing email ... admitting liability for the initial expense, but asserting that it was for some reason unethical to file a lawsuit to recover it. He also cut and pasted some irrelevant section of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct into the email to make it seem as though [applicant] was violating them without actually stating as much. And he deliberately misconstrued some parts of a phone conversation where [applicant] had said going to court with the merits of a case so clearly in his favor would be "fun" and that he "looked forward" to his day in court, in an attempt to make it appear as though the suit was frivolous. He then attempted to trick [applicant] into accepting a check for an amount less than he was entitled to by pretending that the matter was already settled.
¶ 9. The hearing before the three-member panel of the Committee occurred in September 2019. Following the hearing, the panel issued a decision certifying...
To continue reading
Request your trial