ìThe Most Tragic Thing in the World is a Man of Genius Who is no

[ back ]

ìThe Most Tragic Thing in the World is a Man of Genius Who is no

(by Week of November 19, 2008 - November 19, 2008)

Fifty-year-old Richard Bitter wanted to be a Vermont Lawyer. He applied in 2005. The Supreme Court will only admit applicants to the Bar if they are of “good moral character.” Truthfulness is one of the most important character traits necessary to be a lawyer.

Bitter’s ambition to be a lawyer arose out of several scrapes with the law. He had 3 juvenile adjudications for a drug problem; a 25-year-old adult marijuana possession proceeding without conviction; a 17-year-old conviction for felony theft; a 16-year-old conviction of harassing his ex-wife; an 11-year-old conviction of being a disorderly person, reduced from grand larceny; and a 10-year-old conviction for writing bad checks. He had several civil suits against him for bad debts, but had paid them off.

He applied to law school in 1999. On the application he admitted his felony but didn’t disclose his misdemeanors asserting they had concluded without a formal adjudication of guilt. The law school found out about this but admitted him on probation because it was possible the question on the application was confusing. He graduated (JD) and went on to get a graduate degree (LLM) at American University. He didn’t disclose his misdemeanor convictions to American or his probationary tenure at law school although the application asked for both. In 2002 he applied to the New York Bar but was rejected because of his lengthy criminal record and failure to disclose everything to the law schools. His Vermont application didn’t disclose that New York had rejected him because of character.

The Vermont Supreme Court denied Bitter admission to the Bar. The Court commended him for “a decided improvement in his conduct and behavior” noting his last criminal conviction was 10 years old. It also agreed that his present character, not his past was decisive. However, it ruled that although Bitter’s answers on applications may have “in some quibbling sense, been correct” they were not complete nor answered fully and frankly. These recent failings, the Court ruled, were present evidence of his tendency to evade full disclosure of his past and demonstrated persistence of a long standing deceitful character trait. The Court is saying: if you seek a second chance, you must fully own your past, embrace it, confess it, and change. In Re Richard Bitter 2008 Vt. 132.

See www.cheneycolumn.com

* George Bernard Shaw.

Email-A-Friend

Printable Version

Comment on this Article

Comments (14)

On March 30, 2011 Alan said:

I have had the pleasure of knowing Mr. Bitter for nearly five years. I have never had reason to question Rich's moral character or fitness to practice law. Having graduated from Vermont Law School, I am fully familiar with the caliber of individuals enrolled there. That said, I can safely say that although Rich may not be as comfortable perched on a high horse as you all so clearly are, he is, in all likelihood, much smarter than you and would make a markedly better lawyer. It is a shame that he is not given that opportunity. I am appalled that a place that prides itself on open-mindedness and its public interest work and ideals would produce students so quick to judge and belittle an individual and those attempting to defend his good name.

On March 26, 2011 Thomas said:

I participated in this case and am proud to list Rich as a friend of mine. Those in glass houses shall not throw stones. There was nothing wrong with Mr. Bitter's present character. Did he stray as a youth, perhaps, there have been felons, and lawyers who have stolen funds from clients who have served penal sentences and were allowed to practice law. In my opinion it was a travesty of justice, and practicing for over 12 years the only place justice occurs is in the halls of a courthouse. So before you criticize or condemn perhaps you need some life experience first.

On March 19, 2011 Rich said:

I have just re-read the comments on this article and am amazed that so many of you speak out having little or less knowledge than the original author. Just to reiterate, many, many of the facts are plain wrong. I did present affidavits from at least 6 law school professors including a dean. I did not intimidate my ex-wife, I wrote her a letter attempting to heal or relationship. Devin says the fact were uncontroverted, really? I was there and am quite certain they were. I hope you people are better attorneys than your ability to read the facts demonstrates. The article was hardly honestly written. Facts were clearly not checked or the author would have corrected his many errors. And to those of you who act like you have all of the stones to throw, grow up. I was punished for my mistakes, likely to date you have not been, and I hope you never are. We all make mistakes at different times in our lives, I was called on mine. If any of you have the need you can contact me directly at bitter139@yahoo.com. But I suspect none of you will, that would require desiring to get the facts right before making your judgment.

On December 23, 2010 Rich said:

I do not appreciate people taking a swipe at my character. It does not matter if I am a criminal or that I did not get admitted to practice law, I sell used SUV's!

On December 21, 2010 Shaun said:

I notice none of these people were character references for him at the hearing. That's funny!

On December 6, 2010 Devin said:

I am sad to say that my classmate found this post before I did. I can only add that Dorothy must be lost in the clouds. If Dorothy's example were to take place i.e. an individual tripping over their ego, falling into a park bench, cursing and being arrested for disorderly conduct and charged with distruction of property which resulted in the need for an attorney to plea the case down/out. Well I guess you need to read the law on affirmative defenses, disorderly conduct and emergency situations. If you have half a brain you can apply them all and not have to pay an attoney at all. You pay an attorney to slant the truth which is what you apparently want to do. First, I notice that Dorothy did not dispute that what "M.R.B." (Mister Rich Bitter) was charged with or otherwise arrested for actually happened. It is Dorothy's explanation that any charges/arrested must have been a simple misunderstanding. Last I checked, "gee I am sorry I killed her" was not a defense. This person Dorothy, also claims that the article is misleading because any person with a "Lexis" account can read about it. The only thing the article did was summarize was the Supreme Court said about M.R.B. and why he was not admitted. Those are facts which were not controverted at any hearing or minimized. If you have a complaint about the facts of the case and the outcome, talk to M.R.B. about what he would have done differently to get admitted, like being honest and the remainder of his disclosed sordid past because his history was certainly not disputed. J.Q.A.

On December 6, 2010 Tom said:

OK, let me see if I have this right. We have a person that applied to practice law and was denied. This person has friends/advocates that think this was an unfair or that the background which supported this result should not have been published. To those that condemn this article a pox on your house. Nobody refutes this person has a questionable past or that he did was he was accused of. Rather, these friends/advocates appear to believe these transgressions occured so long ago that they should not be considered. The flaw with this logic is the offenses occurred "sometime" ago but the misleading and false responses are recent and new. The clear indication is that this person learned nothing and that no responsibility was assumed. I go to law school and it was part of the course to read In Re Bitter. Ultimately, the class came to the conclusion that this persons responses equated to being a little bit pregnant and more complicated than Charlottes web itself (not the reading of the book). I notice that none of this persons law school teachers have written anything to support his character. For all of you that support this person's admission to practice law, could you please say if your actually a attorney, your first and last name and what State you practice in. Any attorney that would argue for the admission of such a person, in spite of how much you are paid, should be shunned. According to the record of the VT Supreme Court, this person was previously adjudicated of wife intimidation, fraud, bad checks, criminal charges and everything else under the sun. Please let me know what other States he was not admitted in, I will place it on my top 10 places to live, with ethical people.

On December 1, 2010 Josephine said:

Mr. Bitter ran for public office in Valois. He lost. I wonder if this case whas available to the general public at that time? Somehow, I do not think that two different jurisdictions came to the wrong conclusion about this person. He would have fit right into politics. Nobody is forgiving when it comes to trying to color the truth, it is likely he would have been admitted had he not tried to hide things. He was likely given a break just to get into a school with that kind of background.

On November 30, 2010 tom said:

I think the article was honestly written. For those of you that claim there was misinformation why not read the actual case In re Bitter 185 Vt. 151, 969 A.2d 71. This guy is something else. Attorneys have a bad enough reputation without letting in trash like this. Read the case and WHY he was not allowed to practice law in multiple jurisdictions. MULTIPLE. So called, Mr. Bitter, is obviously lacking moral character....once he was placed on probation by Thomas Cooley for his misinformation/misleading responses he should have known what information to disclose....what does he do....he yet again attempts to be less than honest to another law school. In Re Bitter reads like a jail-house novel and BOTH of the STATES which DENIED Mr. Bitter admittance got it right. I notice that Mr. Bitter advertises on the internet that he does legal research, no doubt because he can not practice law. It is interesting he does not inform possible/potential clients, as a disclaimer, that TWO states found Mr. Bitter to be lacking in moral character and candor. I certainly would not let him do my research or near my money but the fact of the matter is the case about him says what it says and the reason he was not admitted was pretty clear. Better to fully disclose information than get caught in a web of half truths.

On January 6, 2009 Dorothy said:

Having known Richard Bitter for at least a decade and knowing how difficult having been denied admittance has been for him, I must say I find myself wondering who YOU are and why you thought the public needed to know the conclusions you drew from what is obviously nothing more than a superficial review of the documentation of one man's humiliation. Are you warning would-be attorneys and if so, a more generalized observation would seem sufficient, with reference to the case for those who care to further research the basis of your opinions - or was this really as personal as your tone suggests? If so, shame on you for your pathetic moralizing and your cavalier attack of Mr. Bitter's character. The infallibility you apparently ascribe to the criminal justice system leads me to believe you are either young or unpracticed or simply stunningly naïve, because any experienced cog in our system will tell you that Justice is only an intermittent byproduct of it and therefore humility, not moral grandstanding, is the lesson to be learned from the failings and misfortunes of those who have run afoul of the capricious enforcement of our mores and strictures. Though I am hundreds of miles from Barre, VT., the noxious stink of hypocrisy and self-righteousness cling to your article and make my nose sting. I say to Mr. Bitter, I’m so sorry your story caught the fancy of this scurrilous would-be journalist – please remember those of us who know you value the man you are and acknowledge that the hurdles of your past likely honed the strict code you hold yourself to today. To you, author of this unnecessarily exploitative tale of caution and woe, I say this: may you trip over your own ego, damage a park bench in the process, swear at the arresting police officer when he charges you with destruction of public property and disorderly conduct and then have to decide whether to plea or shell out $2,500 to hire a defense attorney to clear up this little misunderstanding. Oh, and when you decide to pay the mortgage instead of the lawyer and you plea to at least one of the charges - which you maintain to the end are both bogus- then may some snot-nose journalism major from the local community college decide to do an expose on the damage caused in the parks by disorderly reprobates and include a detailed description of your arrest, conviction and the poor choices that led you to be in the park in the first place, adding in whatever bits of your past are publicly available in support of his conclusion that there are grave moral lessons to be learned from folks like you and we, the general public, ignore them at our own peril. Then, if you are sharp enough, you may come to understand the true value of many of the misdemeanor convictions our lower courts regularly spit out and you may reevaluate your haughty condemnation of Mr. Bitter’s decisions and you may, if you have any spine, write to Mr. Bitter and apologize for frivolously passing judgment upon him. Until then, until you prove to us that you are not a clueless idealist with a free subscription to Lexis, please spare us your moralizing drivel and please, please give up your journalism hobby – it requires an astuteness I suspect will evade you for decades.

On January 6, 2009 Rich said:

Your article about has just come to my attention. You have way too many facts just plain wrong to let go without comment. I will not address each of them individually but rather the fact that you didn't have the courtesy to contact me or, perhaps, Kate Duffy from the A.G.'s office, to get a take on who I am today. The quote from Shaw is a nice swipe at my character. I wonder how you determined I was no man of honor from an incomplete, cold paper record. I hope that your legal acumen is greater than your journalistic fortitude. Rich Bitter

On January 6, 2009 eric said:

I've known Rich for close to a decade now and can state, without question, that he is one of the most intelligent, insightful, trustworthy and honest people that I know! It is absolute crazy that someone who only knows him by what's on a sheet of paper, filled with old outdated information, can have so much say as to the outcome/direction and control his life and career will turn out, without having real care or investment in him. After all, are you the same person you were 20 or even 10 years ago?

On January 5, 2009 Rich said:

Wow, I was searching for another Richard Bitter and I find an article about me, that is generally accurate! How can I get a copy or two for myself, or is it only available on-line? Thanx, Rich Bitter (yea, that one)

[ back ]