In re Halttunen

• Decision Date: 24 December 2020
• Docket Number: SC S067161
• Citation: 478 P.3d 488,367 Or. 360
• Parties: In the MATTER OF the Application for ADMISSION OF: Neil Patrick HALTTUNEN, Applicant.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

367 Or. 360

478 P.3d 488

In the MATTER OF the Application for ADMISSION OF: Neil Patrick HALTTUNEN, Applicant.

SC S067161

Supreme Court of Oregon.

Submitted on the briefs May 19, 2020.

December 24, 2020

David J. Elkanich, Holland & Knight LLP, Portland, filed the briefs for applicant. Also on the briefs was Nellie Q. Barnard.

Theodore W. Reuter, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, Tigard, filed the answering brief on behalf of the Oregon State Bar. Susan R. Cournoyer, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, filed the supplemental brief.

PER CURIAM

In this contested lawyer admission proceeding, the issue is whether applicant Neil Halttunen has proved by clear and convincing evidence that he possesses the good moral character necessary for admission to the Oregon State Bar. A majority of the Board of Bar Examiners (board) issued an opinion recommending that the court deny admission; a minority opinion recommended conditional admission. There is no dispute that, from 2009 to 2012, while working as a police officer, applicant engaged in inappropriate, unethical, and dishonest conduct that raises significant questions about his moral character. Applicant admits that he inappropriately used the position of trust and authority that he possessed as a police officer to pursue romantic and sexual relationships with vulnerable women whom he encountered while performing his official duties. He also admits that he was dishonest with his employer about that conduct during an internal investigation. Applicant contends, however, that he has demonstrated sufficient reformation since leaving the police department to establish his current fitness to practice law. We are persuaded, and we conditionally admit applicant to the practice of law in Oregon.

I. INTRODUCTION AND LEGAL STANDARD

To be admitted to practice law in this state, an applicant must prove "by clear and convincing evidence that he or she is of good moral character and is fit to practice law." In re Zielinski , 341 Or. 559, 561, 146 P.3d 323 (2006) (stating standard); see ORS 9.220(2)(a) (establishing "good moral character and fit to practice law" standard); Rule for Admission of Attorneys (RFA) 9.45(6) (in character review proceeding, applicant must establish by clear and convincing evidence the requisite character and fitness to practice law). "Stated differently, applicant must show that it is ‘highly probable’ that [applicant] has the good moral character and fitness to practice law." In re Covington , 334 Or. 376, 382, 50 P.3d 233 (2002).

An applicant may be unable to establish "good moral character" if the applicant has engaged in "acts or conduct that reflect moral turpitude or * * * [that] would cause a reasonable person to have substantial doubts about the individual's honesty, fairness and respect for the rights of others and for the laws of the state and the nation," if those acts or conduct are "rationally connected to the applicant's fitness to practice law." ORS 9.220(2)(b) ; see also In re Carter , 334 Or. 388, 394, 49 P.3d 792 (2002) (describing the statutory standard). But it is not impossible for such an applicant to demonstrate sufficient reformation of character to establish that he or she presently has the good moral character and fitness to practice law. See, e.g. , id. at 394-95, 49 P.3d 792 (when considering the character of an applicant who had engaged in "misconduct involving moral turpitude," describing the "crucial inquiry" as whether the applicant had demonstrated that his "character has reformed sufficiently in the interim to permit his admission to the Bar").

This court has charged the board with investigating and evaluating an applicant's character and fitness. See RFA 2.10(2) (board shall investigate and evaluate moral character and fitness to practice law of each applicant); RFA 6.05 (board has authority to conduct investigations, convene evidentiary hearings, and issue subpoenas). The board did that in this case by reviewing an extensive documentary record, interviewing applicant, appointing a special investigator, and conducting an evidentiary hearing that included the examination of 25 witnesses. Although the board has recommended a disposition, this court reviews the record de novo to determine whether applicant has shown that he is a person of good moral character. See ORS 9.536(2) ; ORS 9.539 ; Bar Rule of Procedure (BR) 10.6 ; RFA 9.60(5).

II. THE CHARACTER-REVIEW RECORD

A. Prior Misconduct

After graduating from high school and serving for a few years in the Army as a military police officer, applicant moved to Oregon in 1993 to begin a career in law enforcement. He worked first as a corrections officer in Lane County and then as a police officer in Roseburg, finally taking a job as a police officer with the Springfield Police Department, where he worked from 1996 to 2012. During his time at the Springfield Police Department, applicant was twice married and divorced.

Applicant's pattern of misconduct began in 2009, while he was still a police officer at the Springfield Police Department and was married to his second wife. Applicant first pursued a woman whom he had originally encountered when he arrested her on a warrant in 2008. He encountered the woman again in 2009 when investigating a police report that she had made, and he used the woman's interest in the status of that investigation to initiate a personal relationship. Applicant began calling the woman, texting with her, and dropping by her house in his patrol car to chat. He made it known to the woman that he was unhappy in his marriage and wished to have a relationship with her. Those contacts ultimately led to a sexual relationship that began in approximately 2010.

Between that 2009 incident and the end of 2012, applicant pursued numerous other women that he met in the course of his duties, many of whom had criminal records. According to applicant, that conduct resulted in several other sexual relationships and contributed to the end of his second marriage. In addition, applicant estimated that there were eight to twelve other women, whom he also met while performing his official duties, with whom he engaged in inappropriate sexual communications—usually through text messages.

The record is not clear as to the manner in which applicant met and pursued each of those women, but the circumstances for some are similar to those under which he met and pursued the first woman. For example, applicant met one woman when he responded to a car accident and gave her a ride home. He met her again when he responded to a disorderly conduct report at her apartment complex and then showed up at her apartment a week or two later, supposedly to check if she had experienced additional problems but then shifting the discussion to personal matters. The two began a relationship over text messages that eventually became sexual. Applicant met another woman when he responded to a disorderly person complaint near the bar where she worked and then met her again when he responded to a theft that occurred at the bar. After obtaining the woman's personal information for purposes of completing his report, applicant called the woman on her personal phone, and the two began a relationship that included texting and conversation—while applicant was on duty—and at least some sexual contact while he was not on duty.

Although those women described their relationships with applicant as consensual, applicant has admitted that he knew at the time the relationships were unethical, and he has acknowledged that his conduct undermined the credibility of the police department and reflects poor moral character. Moreover, the record makes plain that applicant inappropriately pursued other women who felt that applicant was taking advantage of their vulnerability and the power that he wielded over them as a police officer. For example, applicant twice attempted to pursue an intimate relationship with women whom he met in the course of arresting their boyfriend or husband. He called one of the women from his personal phone less than an hour after advising her that her boyfriend would be spending the night in jail and pressured her into accepting a ride from him, began caressing her arm, and suggested that they find a dark place to park. Both women let applicant know that the contact was unwelcome, and he did not persist, but the women reported that they had felt vulnerable to and intimidated by applicant's inappropriate contact.

Another woman was the manager of an exotic dance club that applicant regularly patrolled when he worked in the evenings. Applicant frequently tried to engage her in conversation when he saw her in the parking lot. Applicant texted her on numerous occasions when the woman understood him to be on duty, sending and asking for sexually suggestive photos as well as sending at least one sexually explicit video. The woman testified that applicant's advances were unwelcome and felt "stalkerish" but that applicant was "the man in charge" (as a police officer), so the woman responded enough "to keep him happy a little bit."

Applicant's unwelcome contacts led to a complaint to the Springfield Police Department in November 2012. That complaint triggered an internal investigation led by Sgt. Rappe, who interviewed applicant and several witnesses. Although applicant now admits to all of the inappropriate contact described above, he displayed a lack of candor during the 2012 investigation. He acknowledged pursuing or engaging in sexual contact with several women, including two of whom the department had not yet been aware, but he admittedly did not disclose other inappropriate sexual encounters with women whom he met through his official duties.

Applicant resigned from the police department before Rappe completed his investigation, and the department closed its investigation. Soon after applicant's resignation, the Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards and Training (DPSST), which trains and certifies public safety...