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 (5)

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 ]