Klahr, Application of

• Decision Date: 21 November 1967
• Docket Number: No. 9040,9040
• Citation: 433 P.2d 977,102 Ariz. 529
• Parties: Application of Gary Peter KLAHR to be admitted as a member of the State Bar of the State of Arizona.
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Page 977

433 P.2d 977

102 Ariz. 529

Application of Gary Peter KLAHR to be admitted as a member of the State Bar of the State of Arizona.

No. 9040.

Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc.

Nov. 21, 1967.

Jack Cavness, Alfred Cox, Phoenix, for applicant.

Robert J. Welliever, Phoenix, for Committee on Examinations and Admissions.

PER CURIAM.

Gary Peter Klahr (hereinafter referred to as applicant) took the written examination for admission to the Bar in February of 1967; however, the Committee on Examinations and Admissions refused to grade his examination because doubt had been raised as to his moral character. On March 10, 1967, on a request by certain members of the regular committee to withdraw from consideration of this case, we ordered that a special committee investigate the qualifications of the applicant, and report their findings to this court. After a hearing on July 8th and 14th, 1967, a majority of the special committee filed their report in which they refused to recommend the applicant for admission 'based on the existence of substantial doubt' as to his good moral character. A minority of two committee members filed a dissent in which they recommended that the applicant be admitted. On August 22, 1967, the applicant filed a petition for review and an application for admission to the State Bar of Arizona pursuant to our newly adopted Rule 28(c), XI(E), (C), 17 A.R.S., Ariz. Sup.Ct.Rules. On November 3, 1967, we entered an order in which we accepted the minority report of the Special Committee on Admissions. That minority report concluded that the evidence failed to overcome the applicant's prima facie proof of good moral character.

The findings of the majority of the Committee were in part the following:

'1. There was a substantial indication that the applicant was not candid in his testimony * * * and was less than truthful in his testimony as to participation in pending litigation in the Maricopa County Superior Court in two separate law suits (sic). As to these actions, the Committee finds that applicant had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in matters of considerable gravity. Applicant has violated Section 33--261 A.R.S. * * *'

'2. The Committee finds that applicant has used the vehicle of public pressure through the device of soliciting newspaper coverage as to matters pending in Court. Though not yet a lawyer, applicant is trained to know the provisions of the Canons of Ethics, and particularly Canon 20.'

'3. There is evidence from the letters of record supportive of the conclusion that applicant has demonstrated either willful dissembling or childish immaturity in seeking to justify the release of information which was confidential and privileged from a report of the applicant concerning internal affairs of the Maricopa County Juvenile Department * * *' '4. There is evidence that applicant used the defense of minority to avoid obligations under circumstances where it may be fairly inferred applicant had full knowledge that he could disaffirm the contracts before he entered into them, and later used this legal power to avoid payment * * *'

The applicant is twenty-five years old, a native citizen of the United States, and has lived most of his life in Arizona, attending grammar school and high school in Phoenix. He was graduated number one in his class from the University of Arizona College of Law.

We have consistently held that the practice of law is not a privilege but a right, conditioned solely on the requirement that a person have the necessary mental, physical and moral qualifications. Application of Levine, 97 Ariz. 88, 397 P.2d 205 (1964); Application of Burke, 87...