In re Frank
| Decision Date | 03 June 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 111.,111. |
| Citation | 293 Ill. 263,127 N.E. 640 |
| Parties | In re FRANK. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Motion by Herman Frank for leave to file application for a license to practice law.
Motion denied.
Herman Frank has made a motion for leave to file an application for a license to practice law. Rule 39 (115 N. E. vii) governs admissions to the bar, and among other things, besides an examination by the board of law examiners, provides that no person shall be admitted to practice, except upon the production of a certificate from the committee on character and fitness that the applicant has such qualifications as to character and general fitness as in the opinion of the committee justify his admission to practice, unless the court orders otherwise. The petition presented with the motion shows that the petitioner has complied with all the requirements of the rule, except as to the production of this certificate, which the committee on character and fitness has refused to issue. The petition avers that the petitioner is a man of good moral character and reputation, and shows that in compliance with a notice from the committee on character and fitness he appeared before that committee, and also presented affidavits and letters pertaining to his character and fitness, but that the committee had refused to grant him the certificate required by the rule, for the reason that the evidence submitted fails to establish affirmatively to the satisfaction of the committee that the petitioner possesses such character and general fitness as would qualify him for admission to the bar and the performance of the duties of an attorney and counselor at law. The petitioner offers to submit to any examination the court may direct and prays that he may be granted a license, or that a rule be entered on the committee on character and fitness to answer the petition.
The court will not ordinarily review the decision of the committee on character and fitness against granting a certificate. If such review may be had in any case, it will be only where there has been an arbitrary refusal to hear and consider evidence which may be presented, or a willful refusal of a certificate manifestly not based upon an investigation and consideration of the applicant's qualifications. No such showing is made by this petition. It appears only that the committee, after an examination of the petitioner and of such evidence as was produced, was not satisfied that he possessed such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anastaplo, In re
... ... We agree, and have held that the discretion exercised by the Committee on Character and Fitness will not ordinarily be reviewed. In re Frank, 293 Ill. 263, 127 N.E. 640 ... The committee conducted an extensive inquiry into Anastaplo's belief in the right to overthrow the government by force and violence. His testimony in this regard does not require narration since a majority of the committee concluded that while the ... ...
-
Kalish v. Illinois Educ. Ass'n
...(1957), 11 Ill.2d 327, 330, 143 N.E.2d 20, appeal dismissed (1957), 355 U.S. 82, 78 S.Ct. 153, 2 L.Ed.2d 111, and In re Frank (1920), 293 Ill. 263, 264, 127 N.E. 640.) More significantly, where, as here, the Committee does certify an applicant for admission, that action is not reviewable by......
-
Loss, In re
...the court will not reverse the committee's finding (In re Ascher (1980), 81 Ill.2d 485, 44 Ill.Dec. 95, 411 N.E.2d 1; In re Frank (1920), 293 Ill. 263, 127 N.E. 640) unless there has been an abuse of discretion. He argues, too, that under Supreme Court Rule 708(c) (87 Ill.2d R. 708(c)) cert......
-
Glenville, In re
...(1980), 81 Ill.2d 485, 498, 44 Ill.Dec. 95, 411 N.E.2d 1; In re Latimer (1957), 11 Ill.2d 327, 330, 143 N.E.2d 20; In re Frank (1920), 293 Ill. 263, 264, 127 N.E. 640; but see In re Loss (1987), 119 Ill.2d 186, 193-94, 116 Ill.Dec. 160, 518 N.E.2d 981 (when the Committee recommends to certi......