[ back ]
ěThe 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.
[ back ]
