Ronwin, Application of
| Decision Date | 06 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. SB--52--2,SB--52--2 |
| Citation | 113 Ariz. 357,555 P.2d 315 |
| Parties | Application of Edward RONWIN to be admitted as a Member of the State Bar of Arizona. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
David M. Lurie, Phoenix, for petitioner.
Edward Ronwin, in pro per.
Donald Daughton, Phoenix, for Committee on Examinations and Admissions.
Dale Beck Furnish, Tempe, for amici curiae, Gilbert T. Venable, Stephen E. Lee, John P. Morris, Beatrice Moulton, and Richard C. Dahl.
The applicant, Edward Ronwin, filed this petition for review after a Special Committee on Examinations and Admissions appointed by this Court refused to recommend him for admission to the State Bar of Arizona on the ground that he 'is not mentally able to engage in the active and continuous practice of the law.'
Ronwin graduated from the Arizona State University College of Law in January of 1974. He took and failed the bar examination administered the following month. A petition for review of the grading of the examination papers filed with the Committee on Examinations and Admissions was denied. A similar petition subsequently filed in this Court was also denied.
On July 22, 1974, eight days before he was to retake the exam, the Committee on Examinations and Admissions informed Ronwin that he had not qualified for permission to take the test 'in that the Committee is unable to make the requisite finding that you are mentally and physically able to engage in (the) active and continuous practice of law.' A petition for a Writ of Special Action was filed by the applicant with this Court the next day. We conducted a hearing and declined to take jurisdiction of the matter on July 30th.
On September 24, 1974, an order was entered by this Court appointing a Special Committee to conduct a formal hearing under Rule 28(c) XII D of the Rules of the Supreme Court for the sole purpose of determining whether Ronwin was mentally able to engage in the active and continuous practice of law. Following substantial discovery the hearing was held on January 6 and 7, 1975. On January 21st the seven member Committee issued the following findings:
'(T)he applicant suffers from an established personality disorder of a character and pattern which will persist in the event the applicant is admitted to the practice of law which
'(a) Causes him to be unreasonably suspicious that bad motives and intentions activate persons with whom he comes into contact and to unreasonably imagine that he is the object of unfair persecution by such persons and to act upon such imagined wrongs as if in fact sustained by known facts;
'(b) Causes him to make irresponsible and highly derogatory untrue public accusations and charges against persons in responsible positions which he knows or reasonably should know are without any factual basis or support;
'(c) Causes him to bring and pursue with great persistence groundless claims in court proceedings and otherwise even though he knows or should reasonably know such claims to be groundless, and that thereby others will be subjected to needless expense and concerns.'
The Committee concluded that 'because of this personality disorder applicant would probably be unable to properly represent and serve the interests of his clients * * * (and) will probably * * * bring and prosecute groundless claims and subject clients, parties, the Court and adversary counsel to groundless charges of misconduct and impropriety if his view of the merits of the claims he presented should be vigorously opposed and be found to be without merit by the Court.'
Ronwin filed a Petition for Review of the Committee's findings in this Court on January 28, 1975, placing the case in its present posture. The applicant's subsequent motion seeking an order admitting him to the Bar or, in the alternative, permitting him to take the examination pending a determination of his petition for review was denied.
The practice of law is not a privilege but a right, conditioned solely upon the requirement that a person have the necessary mental, physical and moral qualifications. Application of Klahr, 102 Ariz. 529, 433 P.2d 977 (1967); Application of Burke, 87 Ariz. 336, 351 P.2d 169 (1960). This right 'is neither greater nor less than the right to engage in other occupations, businesses or trades, for the right to seek and retain employment is shared by all equally and to be equal must be upon the same conditions.' Application of Levine, 97 Ariz. 88, 397 P.2d 205 (1964). In Arizona, as a prerequisite to the admission to practice an applicant has the burden of establishing as required by Rule 28(c) IV(3) of the Rules of the Supreme Court that he is 'mentally * * * able to engage in active and continuous practice of law.' See Application of Courtney, 83 Ariz. 231, 319 P.2d 991 (1957). If the Committee believed in this case that there was doubt as to Ronwin's mental qualifications 'its plain duty was to refuse to certify his name to this Court for admission, for the ultimate responsibility for the admittance to the practice of law lies in the members of the Court.' Application of Levine, supra. See Application of Walker, 112 Ariz. 134, 539 P.2d 891 (1975). The Committee's task is often a difficult one as some of the concepts embodied in the Rules escape definition in the abstract. Because of this a petition for review concerning such a matter 'must be judged on its own merits, and an Ad hoc determination in each instance must be made by the court.' Application of Klahr, supra.
After a careful review of the record we have concluded that Ronwin has failed to demonstrate that he is mentally able to engage in the active and continuous practice of law. To survey in this opinion the allegations or criticisms made by various witnesses or the psychiatric and psychological testimony would unnecessarily inject comment on the character or reputation of persons other than the individual who is the focus of this case and would serve to heighten the extreme emotion with which the applicant and others view several of the incidents which were highlighted at the committee hearings. It would also discourage in the future the sort of candid and personal testimony which many people are naturally reluctant to give but which is necessary in order to make a competent evaluation of an applicant's qualifications.
In summary, there is significant expert...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hoover v. Ronwin
...solely upon the requirement that a person have the necessary mental, physical and moral qualifications." Application of Ronwin, 113 Ariz. 357, 358, 555 P.2d 315, 316 (1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 907, 97 S.Ct. 1178, 51 L.Ed. 583 (1977). In short, one looks in vain in Arizona law, petitione......
-
Ronwin v. State Bar of Arizona
...to find Ronwin mentally fit to practice law. The finding of unfitness was affirmed by the Arizona Supreme Court. Application of Ronwin, 113 Ariz. 357, 555 P.2d 315 (1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 907, 97 S.Ct. 1178, 51 L.Ed.2d 583 (1977).3 On remand, however, it may be necessary to determine......
-
Ronwin v. Shapiro
...unwarranted suspicion, excessive self-importance and a tendency to blame others and ascribe evil motives to them. Application of Ronwin, 113 Ariz. 357, 555 P.2d 315, 317 (1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 907, 97 S.Ct. 1178, 51 L.Ed.2d 583 Dickinson, a student member of the Arizona Law Review, ......
-
Ronwin, Matter of, s. SB-52-8
...his ability to "reasonably deal with the type of social interaction" required in the practice of law. Application of Ronwin (Ronwin I), 113 Ariz. 357, 359, 555 P.2d 315, 317 (1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 907, 97 S.Ct. 1178, 51 L.Ed.2d 583 (1977). We concluded that finding (b) of the commit......