Jaffee, Application of
Decision Date | 16 June 1994 |
Citation | 874 P.2d 1299,319 Or. 172 |
Parties | In the Matter of the Application of Kenneth Miles JAFFEE, for Admission to the Bar of the State of Oregon, Applicant. SC S35948. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Before CARSON, C.J., and PETERSON, * GILLETTE, VAN HOOMISSEN, FADELEY, UNIS and GRABER, JJ.
This is a contested bar admission case in which the issue is whether applicant Kenneth Miles Jaffee (applicant) should be admitted to the Oregon State Bar (Bar). We admit applicant to practice.
Applicant is a graduate of the McGeorge School of Law, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in California, and has passed the necessary examinations for admission to practice in Oregon. The question of his admission to practice in Oregon has been before this court once before. In In re Jaffee, 311 Or. 159, 164-65, 806 P.2d 685 (1991), this court denied applicant admission to the Bar on the ground that five years had not yet elapsed since applicant had committed acts that, had they been committed by an active member of the Bar, likely would have led to that person's disbarment. More than five years have now passed, and applicant has reapplied for admission. Although the then-members of the Oregon Board of Bar Examiners (the Board) recommended applicant's admission when the case previously was before this court, the present Board, by a split vote, has recommended that applicant not be admitted.
Because it serves as an excellent predicate for our discussion of the issues in the present case, we quote at length from the statement of procedural and factual history in our former opinion:
conduct, which had occurred in 1981 and 1982. Also while practicing in California, applicant served two days in jail for contempt, relating to his presentation of the defense in a criminal jury trial, and was, on another occasion, fined $50.
Id. at 161-63, 806 P.2d 685 (footnote omitted).
Testimony at the hearing on applicant's most recent application for admission did not materially alter our understanding of any of the facts surrounding applicant's history. It does appear from the most recent record that applicant's public service activities have continued and, if anything, expanded. Applicant also has been able to resume close ties with his parents--a connection that was of some assistance both to applicant and his An applicant for admission to the Bar must show that he or she is a person of good moral character. ORS 9.220(2)(a). 1 An applicant must prove that he has the requisite character by clear and convincing evidence. In re Rowell, 305 Or. 584, 588, 754 P.2d 905 (1988). That means that an applicant must show that it is "highly probable" that he has good moral character. In re Monaco, 317 Or. 366, 370 n. 4, 856 P.2d 311 (1993). Any significant doubts about an applicant's character should be resolved in favor of protecting the public by denying admission to the applicant. In re Easton, 298 Or. 365, 367-68, 692 P.2d 592 (1984) (citing In re Alpert, 269 Or. 508, 518, 525 P.2d 1042 (1974)), cert. den. 472 U.S. 1012, 105 S.Ct. 2711, 86 L.Ed.2d 726 (1985).
father during applicant's mother's long illness and death due to cancer. The parents had moved to the Medford area to be near applicant; applicant's father continues to reside there. As will appear, the Board does not seem to challenge applicant's general reformation or his good works. Its concern--to the extent that it has one--focuses on applicant's 1985 and 1986 behavior and, more specifically, on what applicant now says about that behavior.
In re Jaffee, supra, 311 Or. at 165, 806 P.2d 685.
As the Board acknowledges, "[r]eformation is a very difficult matter for a petitioner to prove and for [this court] to judge." In re Bernard Jolles, 235 Or. 262, 275, 383 P.2d 388 (1963). But reformation can be proved to this court's satisfaction, as this court's past decisions attest. See, e.g., In re Rowell, supra (illustrating proposition). As evidence of reformation, this court has looked to (1) character testimony from those who know and have had an opportunity to observe the applicant, In re Bernard Jolles, supra, 235 Or. at 275-76, 383 P.2d 388; (2) participation in activities that benefit society, In re Rowell, supra, 305 Or. at 591, 754 P.2d 905; and (3) an applicant's forthright acknowledgment of the wrongfulness of his or her past actions, In re Fine, 303 Or. 314, 736 P.2d 183 (1987).
The record in the present case is replete with examples of all three of the foregoing types of evidence of reformation. Coworkers who have known and worked with applicant for years attest to his good character and dedication to his work and to the clients whom ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Prager, Matter of
...applicant's character should be resolved in favor of protecting the public by denying admission to the applicant." Matter of Jaffee, 319 Or. 172, 177, 874 P.2d 1299 (1994). The applicant here was released from probation only two years ago. He applied for admission to the bar just eight mont......
-
Williams v. Gentry
...States v. Hudson, 717 F.2d 1211, 1214 (8th Cir. 1983); State v. Smith, 51 Or.App. 777, 627 P.2d 26, 27 (1981); In re Jaffee, 319 Or. 172, 874 P.2d 1299, 1307 n.5 (1994). In all events, in the evidence presented at Williams' trial, the expert testified only that he possibly observed "one or ......
-
In re Admission to Bar of Com.
...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......
-
T.J.S., Application of
...character and fitness "should be resolved in favor of protecting the public by denying admission to the applicant." In re Jaffee, 319 Or. 172, 874 P.2d 1299, 1302 (1994). We are mindful that there are situations where meaningful rehabilitation will overcome the prior taint of serious miscon......