Skip to content
Legal Community & Bar Exam Resources
Start a New Topic
AttorneysBar ExamGeneralLaw Student

California Moral Character and Fitness Support

Sign in to watch this discussion
EverGreenJD
A place for those with C&F issues can discuss the process and offer support. Please post your stories and questions. NOTE: Don't go into great detail about your issue, just enough to explain your situation. If you were admitted or denied after your informal conference, please share your experience. Trolls abound, please ignore them. No one is perfect.We all make mistakes, some worse than others. No judgment here. This is a place to post resources and encouragement.

Do you know of any cases where someone was denied admission by the Moral Character Committee and subsequently admitted after a State Bar Court hearing? Please,post them here. It helps others to understand the reasoning behind denials.

The informal conference seems to be cloaked in mystery. People are terrified of the process. Knowledge turns fear into courage. The more applicants learn about the process, the less nervous they'll be.
#15923
Is it safe?
Are we "allowed" to discuss it? I know that MBE questions are a no go for that. Anyone know about this for sure?
I'd hate to see the irony of a cf violation for trying to avoid cf violations.
#129941
EverGreenJD

Posted By Anonymous on 11/22/2018 9:04 AM
Are we "allowed" to discuss it? I know that MBE questions are a no go for that. Anyone know about this for sure?
I'd hate to see the irony of a cf violation for trying to avoid cf violations.


And we have our first troll. Awesome. To be clear, during the C&F process, it is the applicant who can claim and require confidentiality. If you want to discuss it, you certainly can. It's your First Amendment right, and the State Bar can't stop you. Period. Comparing it to the MBE is silly, something only a troll would do. The MBE is copyrighted. This is the reason applicants, or anyone else for that matter, aren't allowed to discuss it.

Here's something that might be helpful. It's judge's decision denying Zachary Coughlin admission to practice law in California. Read it closely. It's informative, and could help applicants who are anticipating a C&F issue. Interestingly enough, Mr. Coughlin was never admitted. After reading the decision, any reasonable person can see why.

[external link removed]

Mr. Coughlin also posted what he says is the transcript of his informal conference, which applicants can request. However, if you read what he posted on the Scribd site, you'll see that he didn't post the whole thing. However, in his decision deny Mr. Coughlin admission, the judge refers to what went on in the informal conference. Pay attention. This one's worth reading a couple of times.

Also, if you find this information helpful, (1) say so, and (2) click on an ad in this forum as you leave. The site's owners get a couple of cents for your efforts. It's the least you can do.
#129942
?
Do you know what a troll is? Wow. Good luck. Suprised you made it this far.
#129943
EverGreenJD
^^^^TROLL^^^^^
#129944
EverGreenJD
One thing I've learned by discussing the subject with others is that the informal conference is more in the control of the applicant than they believe it is. That's part of the reason for the secrecy. The committee members want to project an illusion of control, but in reality, the person at the head of the table, the applicant, decides how it goes. It's actually quite empowering.
#129945
Mental illness
Calling people names, compartmentalizing into group of us vs them in conspiracies based on info you only think you have in your own mind and anyone with outside facts that contradict can't be true and must be the imaginary group......if your cf is anything psych related link the photocopies shown before....nuff said psycho. They weed that garden for a reason.
#129946
EverGreenJD
^^^^TROLL^^^^

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, we might as well talk about mental health issues. The California Bar no longer asks about the mental health diagnosis of an applicant, not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because such questions likely violate the ADA as well as the California Constitution. Instead, if they have concerns about your mental health, they'll ask questions about your behavior. If you follow the link I posted above, you can see that even if Mr. Coughlin hadn't disclosed his mental health issues, his behavior with his professor, law enforcement, at the informal conference, and then at the State Bar Court hearing raised concerns. Today, that's what the bar will focus on if you've had repeated run-ins with law enforcement where you've become uncooperative or belligerent. Multiple firings, verbal altercations with authorities of any sort, and public displays of intoxication or inappropriate behavior can be signs that something is amiss. Be prepared to explain any of these on your C&F application.

If you've resisted seeking counseling because you were worried that it would prohibit you from practicing in California, go ahead and seek treatment. The Bar is likely to look more favorably on your rehabilitation if you do the responsible thing and contact a mental health professional.


#129947
Wrong
Um... wrong.....
#129948
Crazy is as crazy does
Symptoms of being nutjob, agreed, as in your nutjob deflection techniques that were mentioned. Damn u stopppit ⛅.
#129949
Plus...
...you wouldn't get a required meeting for a non issue....so.......wow
#129950
EverGreenJD
^^^^TROLLS^^^^

The good news is that every time a troll posts, search algorithms bump up the original post's placement. There is an important lesson here regarding C&F issues. Just because it looks bad, don't assume something good can't come of it. That's the whole point of rehabilitation. If you have something to answer for, delve into and answer for it.

#129951
ComingOutAgain
If you are waiting more than 10 months with no word, are they thinking about calling you in?
#129952
Troll

Posted By Anonymous on 12/03/2018 9:00 AM
If you are waiting more than 10 months with no word, are they thinking about calling you in?

#129953
New word
Looks like someone thought they learned a new word, but apparently they don’t know what Troll means, wtf,
#129954
Troll

Posted By Anonymous on 12/04/2018 6:48 AM
Looks like someone thought they learned a new word, but apparently they don’t know what Troll means, wtf,

#129955
EverGreenJD
Questions about the length of time it takes to process the Moral C&F application are common. If you sat for the bar exam, they told you then that in California, you will wait a minimum of 6-8 months. If you've never been arrested, convicted of a crime, fired from a job where you had a fiduciary responsibility, or never been delinquent, you'll likely be cleared by month 8. If, however, you have character and fitness blemishes, your application will take longer to clear. Whether you are called for the informal hearing will depend on the seriousness of what you did. Take a close look at the moral character portion of the CalBar site. It tells you what problems are likely to hold you up.
#129956
Not helpful

Posted By Anonymous on 12/06/2018 10:55 AM
Questions about the length of time it takes to process the Moral C&F application are common. If you sat for the bar exam, they told you then that in California, you will wait a minimum of 6-8 months. If you've never been arrested, convicted of a crime, fired from a job where you had a fiduciary responsibility, or never been delinquent, you'll likely be cleared by month 8. If, however, you have character and fitness blemishes, your application will take longer to clear. Whether you are called for the informal hearing will depend on the seriousness of what you did. Take a close look at the moral character portion of the CalBar site. It tells you what problems are likely to hold you up.
they wouldn't have asked if no issues and all you said is gts.
#129957
NoWord
How long after the informal hearing before the committee lets the applicant know if they are denied?
#129958
no news is good news

Posted By Anonymous on 12/31/2018 11:10 AM
How long after the informal hearing before the committee lets the applicant know if they are denied?


you know when they tell you

if not denied yet, there is hope, don't hate on hope, embrace it , good luck and happynew year (truthful well wishes)
#129959
EverGreenJD
Interesting question. Some people report being told at the end of the informal conference that they would not be admitted unless they agreed to enter into an abeyance agreement. Others report receiving word three to four weeks later by mail. These people also reported that their status on the website changed before they got the snail mail. I read somewhere that others have waited as long ten weeks to get an answer. It appears there's no real time frame. It's whatever they say it is.
#129960
abeyence agreement?

Posted By Anonymous on 01/02/2019 6:34 AM
Interesting question. Some people report being told at the end of the informal conference that they would not be admitted unless they agreed to enter into an abeyance agreement. Others report receiving word three to four weeks later by mail. These people also reported that their status on the website changed before they got the snail mail. I read somewhere that others have waited as long ten weeks to get an answer. It appears there's no real time frame. It's whatever they say it is.


never heard of them doing that, any examples (without too specific to out anyone of course)?
#129961
Anonomolon
Hi,

Would anyone be so kind as to clarify the difference between an analyst and an investigator? Are these positions the same thing, or different? My file is currently being reviewed by an investigator, and I have received one correspondence from them asking various questions, to which I have replied. So far, there has been no subsequent response. Does the following seem like a correct interpretation of the process:

Investigator asks questions --> I respond --> investigator maybe asks more questions --> I respond --> investigator refers my file to the committee with totality of questions and answers, and committee votes at one of their (monthly? bi-monthly?) meetings to call me in for an informal conference, or to admit me?

Appreciate any insight as to the timeline for those who have done this before, thanks so much!
#129962
Anonomolon
And to clarify to the above, I'm also wondering if I should try and contact my investigator for an update, or if that is something that should be reserved for an analyst (if they are not the same thing).
#129963
EverGreenJD

Posted By Anonymous on 01/09/2019 9:13 PM
Hi,

Would anyone be so kind as to clarify the difference between an analyst and an investigator? Are these positions the same thing, or different? My file is currently being reviewed by an investigator, and I have received one correspondence from them asking various questions, to which I have replied. So far, there has been no subsequent response. Does the following seem like a correct interpretation of the process:

Investigator asks questions --> I respond --> investigator maybe asks more questions --> I respond --> investigator refers my file to the committee with totality of questions and answers, and committee votes at one of their (monthly? bi-monthly?) meetings to call me in for an informal conference, or to admit me?

Appreciate any insight as to the timeline for those who have done this before, thanks so much!


That's about right. The committee has meetings every other month. You can go to the state bar site, click on news at the top, and find the public meeting schedule. They have one today, Feb. 1, in LA. They'll decide whether to call in people for informal conferences. They'll notify the unfortunate before the next meeting, which is in April.

Good luck. This blows.
#129964
Blunder
Has anyone ever heard of someone being denied because of a mistake? Someone on another board said they were denied because of an incident that didn't happen. They said the Committee made a mistake. Sounds dubious to me, but then again.......
#129965
unlikely

Posted By Anonymous on 02/01/2019 9:56 AM
Has anyone ever heard of someone being denied because of a mistake? Someone on another board said they were denied because of an incident that didn't happen. They said the Committee made a mistake. Sounds dubious to me, but then again.......


I guess do follow-up if your own case. If an administrative error I'm sure that they can fix it. If someone else is claiming it cant be fixed then the "mistake" is that the other side believes the facts to be true, which is more likely that they are just either not telling the truth themselves or are in denial, or some other reason why they should be denied.
#129966
EverGreenJD

Posted By Anonymous on 02/01/2019 9:56 AM
Has anyone ever heard of someone being denied because of a mistake? Someone on another board said they were denied because of an incident that didn't happen. They said the Committee made a mistake. Sounds dubious to me, but then again.......


In 2014 an applicant who was denied claims the Committee accused him of a non-existent crime and said he filed over 40 lawsuits. He claims neither is true. I don't know, though. It's Delacruz v. the State Bar, I think. It's an older case. It's on Scribd.com

I think the other poster might be right. If it was administrative, simply contacting them and pointing out the error would probably lead to them correcting it. Unless, of course, it's true or part of it is true. Seems unlikely that they wouldn't correct an administrative error.
#129967
Anomolon
Thanks for clarifying about the process! About how soon after the meeting do they submit the informal conference invites? Is it safe to say that if I haven’t gotten an invite yet, if I get one it’ll be on the next round (and not this one)?
#129968
Denied

Posted By Anonymous on 02/06/2019 8:04 PM
Thanks for clarifying about the process! About how soon after the meeting do they submit the informal conference invites? Is it safe to say that if I haven’t gotten an invite yet, if I get one it’ll be on the next round (and not this one)?


I got my invite six weeks after the August meeting of the CBE. They meet every other month. They met on Feb. 1. They meet again in April. At each meeting, they go into closed session and discuss who to invite to an informal conference and what to do about those who attended the informal conference.

If you get an invite, be prepared. Whatever it was that triggered it, go through the record. Look for anyplace where someone could say you showed a lack of candor. This isn't a picnic. Be ready.
#129969
Be overly honest
They will have stuff you forgot anyone had in that file. If they catch you trying to backtrack you are fucked and might as well stop and walk out right then and there.

Example: When did you quit drinking? A year ago. None since then ? Nope. Then why were you in the hospital last month for an overdose?=fucked.
#129970
lawblaw
Anyone know who receives the questionnaire at former employers? Is it only the former manager listed? Does HR also receive a questionnaire, or receive some sort of phone call to confirm details or employment? I'm on great terms with my former manager, but worried that HR person wasn't my biggest fan.
#129971
I dont think they even care to be honest
I think its like landlords, they don't really contact them in my experience. Not unless the character and fitness conflict was from there. Did you get fired for cause or kill someone on the job? If not, they likely wont really even contact them.
#129972
further detail

Posted By Anonymous on 02/15/2019 2:34 PM
I think its like landlords, they don't really contact them in my experience. Not unless the character and fitness conflict was from there. Did you get fired for cause or kill someone on the job? If not, they likely wont really even contact them.

To add on to what I just wrote a minute ago, its largely due to the bulk of applicants. Can you imagine the burden on them if they did that for EVERYONE? No, they have to focus. It would be like if the IRS audited everything on everyone. It wouldn't work. So no worries on it.

Besides, most HR people forget you were even alive 5 minutes after you leave, unless you got his daughter pregnant or gave his wife AIDS. Was it both? Cuz, he'll remember you if it was both.
#129973
EverGreenJD
Something like that, but not always so obvious. If you say you quit drinking, but ended up in the hospital for alcohol poisoning while your application is pending, that's going to be a problem at the informal conference. It's lack of candor.

Things they will bring up that you will be unprepared for include any statements by any law enforcement officials that you have ever had contact with. If you were actually arrested law enforcement's statements in the report will hold more weight than any denial you offer. If you got in law enforcement's face, if you refused to cooperate, if you lied, all of these will come up. Read the police reports. Look for any little thing that could remotely be construed as disrespect for law enforcement, and be prepared to admit it and/or explain it.

For example, if there's a police report that says you got pulled over for speeding, and when the officer approached the car, it smelled heavily of cannabis, don't say that the sweater you were wearing smelled like weed because you smoked some a year ago and didn't wash it. (This really happened to one applicant. He actually said it at the informal conference. Not admitted.)

They send references to your current employer and most of your other listed employers. If you've ever been fired from a job, especially a legal one, you're going to have to explain. If your supervisor from a former job didn't like you, be ready to explain, in coherent and reasoned detail what the workplace issue was.

In 2010, the Committee was denying only about 80 people a year. Thanks to Stephen Glass, they are now denying somewhere around 200 each year and disbarring people at a rate of over 20 a month. They've really cracked down on anything that might seem like an impairment to moral character so it doesn't seem like California is an easy state to get admitted in.
#129974
SG
I had to google who steven glass was/is, and he appears to be licensed. So, HOW is he "the reason" for all of this if he is licensed and was only telling fibs as a journalist?
#129975
Denied

Posted By Anonymous on 02/17/2019 5:31 PM
I had to google who steven glass was/is, and he appears to be licensed. So, HOW is he "the reason" for all of this if he is licensed and was only telling fibs as a journalist?


Sigh. Google it again. Stephen Glass is not licensed in California, and he will never be licensed. Fibs? Dude's the father of fake news, literally. He nearly destroyed TNR. Sent the New York Times, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, and George into straight up defamation hell. That you don't know who he is stuns me. His case went all the way to the California Supreme Court. The Committee denied him. The Hearing department reversed. The Committee appealed. The Review department reversed. Glass appealed. The Cal. Supreme Court sided with the Committee. His denial was confirmed in 2014. Read the case. You'll be shocked. If you're worried that you'll need to defend yourself in State Bar Court, you better be intimately familiar with the Glass case. They cited it in my denial letter, four months ago. They're still using that standard to deny people.

I have a copy of the Committee's pleading to the Supreme Court of California. You can email me at BigMartha@mail.com and I'll send you a copy. You really don't have any idea what you're talking about. When you figure it out, you'll be shocked at how much you don't know.
#129976
Denied what?
Was something here attempting a motion your honour?
#129977
ah.........

Posted By Anonymous on 02/20/2019 7:29 AM

Posted By Anonymous on 02/17/2019 5:31 PM
I had to google who steven glass was/is, and he appears to be licensed. So, HOW is he "the reason" for all of this if he is licensed and was only telling fibs as a journalist?


Sigh. Google it again. Stephen Glass is not licensed in California, and he will never be licensed. Fibs? Dude's the father of fake news, literally. He nearly destroyed TNR. Sent the New York Times, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, and George into straight up defamation hell. That you don't know who he is stuns me. His case went all the way to the California Supreme Court. The Committee denied him. The Hearing department reversed. The Committee appealed. The Review department reversed. Glass appealed. The Cal. Supreme Court sided with the Committee. His denial was confirmed in 2014. Read the case. You'll be shocked. If you're worried that you'll need to defend yourself in State Bar Court, you better be intimately familiar with the Glass case. They cited it in my denial letter, four months ago. They're still using that standard to deny people.

I have a copy of the Committee's pleading to the Supreme Court of California. You can email me at BigMartha@mail.com and I'll send you a copy. You really don't have any idea what you're talking about. When you figure it out, you'll be shocked at how much you don't know.


If they cited it, then it there was relevance between his case and yours...…..they don't cite traffic tickets to justify fire codes. So you did something similar. Your attitude kind of reflects that. Did you appeal to state court? Did you win there?
#129978
Denied

Posted By Anonymous on 02/20/2019 8:35 AM
If they cited it, then it there was relevance between his case and yours...…..they don't cite traffic tickets to justify fire codes. So you did something similar. Your attitude kind of reflects that. Did you appeal to state court? Did you win there?


I assure you, I didn't do anything near what SG did. They cited it, but I don't think it's relevant. That's what my appeal said. If they cite to Glass, they think your rehabilitative efforts are insufficient and self-serving. (See In re Glass.) They don't cite to cases otherwise, just that one if they don't like your rehabilitation.

If you appeal, they try to get you an answer in 8 mos. So, give yourself some time.

#129979
EverGreenJD
The best practice is to find an attorney to help you. The appeal process is difficult and riddled with traps. They do a new investigation. Make sure you understand that. It could make things worse.
#129980
Worried
Hi, I just submitted my moral character application and didnt disclose anything because the questions did not call for disclosure of the past issues I am worried about. Here are the issues (all of which happened during law school - I know that's bad):
- driving on a suspended license ticket (my license was only suspended for 2 weeks because I got a failure to appear for a speeding ticket that was sent to a wrong address - I quickly worked everything out);
- an arrest for a suspected DUI, it was subsequently dismissed, my BAC was below the legal limit and I have no other alcohol or drug related anything in my past;
- getting the police called on me for movie theater hopping (nothing happened, I just got kicked out but there might be a police report and I had attitude with the officer);
- $260k in student loans that I just recently started paying on (I didnt pay on them for a few years), and a few random other bills that were sent to collections in the past, but are current now; also multiple late payments on my credit report;
- and lastly, I procrastinated on submitting my moral character app for years (I graduated law school 5 years ago) - not sure if that'ssomething they take into consideration.

Am I screwed? Should I submit something supplemental to report and address any of this? Any advice appreciated!
#129981
You may have issues
In AZ the C & F app asked for a driving record of the last 5 years. So you would get red flagged there. The app also asked if you were ever arrested. Your state may only ask about convictions, which puts you in the clear. The student loans shouldn’t be a problem unless you missed payments.
#129982
Worried
Thanks for answering :) I am in California - they didn't ask about driving issues (unless a misdemeanor) or arrests that didn't result in convictions. But I'm still worried that maybe I should have disclosed. A friend of mine disclosed traffic stuff they didn't ask about. Not sure if it helped her, but it certainly didn't hurt. She passed with no issues.
#129983
Depends

Posted By Anonymous on 03/23/2019 12:07 PM
Thanks for answering :) I am in California - they didn't ask about driving issues (unless a misdemeanor) or arrests that didn't result in convictions. But I'm still worried that maybe I should have disclosed. A friend of mine disclosed traffic stuff they didn't ask about. Not sure if it helped her, but it certainly didn't hurt. She passed with no issues.


Describe YOUR definition of "traffic stuff". It might be different than the bars definition. Lots of stuff rises to misdomeanor (or even felony) levels that happens in a car that doesnt result in any jail and is just a mail in a check if you dont contest it issue. Did you drive without insurance? Thats a misdomeanor. Did you have a beer? Thats a felony. Etc.
#129984
dbolous
I would like some input. I have a lawsuit for running an illegal marijuana dispensary. Not criminal but civil. I plan on filing bankruptcy after the case is over. I also have a dine and dash from two years ago. (Severe Lapse in Judgement)

I am not sure if I will pass the moral fitness. I was wondering if anyone has any insight. I still want to become a lawyer but I am not sure if my past will keep out of the California Bar.
#129985
EverGreenJD

Posted By dbolous on 03/25/2019 1:59 AM
I would like some input. I have a lawsuit for running an illegal marijuana dispensary. Not criminal but civil. I plan on filing bankruptcy after the case is over. I also have a dine and dash from two years ago. (Severe Lapse in Judgement)

I am not sure if I will pass the moral fitness. I was wondering if anyone has any insight. I still want to become a lawyer but I am not sure if my past will keep out of the California Bar.


You'll have an uphill climb, but as long as you don't have any violent felonies or convictions for any kind of fraud, you're probably fine.
#129986
Battle

Posted By dbolous on 03/25/2019 1:59 AM
I would like some input. I have a lawsuit for running an illegal marijuana dispensary. Not criminal but civil. I plan on filing bankruptcy after the case is over. I also have a dine and dash from two years ago. (Severe Lapse in Judgement)

I am not sure if I will pass the moral fitness. I was wondering if anyone has any insight. I still want to become a lawyer but I am not sure if my past will keep out of the California Bar.
[/quote



In CA no less. You are in for a war. Is it possible to declare bankruptcy after the review of C & F? I would be very forthright about the Dine and Dash, then pray. Could be a two year process, or longer.
#129987
Dbolous
Does it matter if the dine and dash was dismissed?
#129988
Hire a Lawyer
Dboulous, go read this whole thread on top-law-schools. I found it very helpful for seeing what types of things cause issues for people. I do think the illegal dispensary will be a huge obstacle. You'll definitely want to get advice from a lawyer who specializes in these matters.
[external link removed]
#129989
Edamg
Greetings, I also have a question. I am out of state attorney waiting Feb 2019 bar exam results and moral character results. I have received a parking ticket for using my mother's handicap parking pass. I used it after she has passed away and I was caught. I received ticket in Nevada. Will this give me a problem? How would this show up? It will not be on records they check, no?
#129990
Post a Reply

Check the box to confirm you are human. After the protected verification succeeds, this address is marked safe so clean posts can appear immediately. Forum rules and administrator blocks still apply, and guest posts cannot contain links.

Latest in Wiki