ADM-2004-176, IN THE MATTER OF BAR APPLICANT 2004-176

convincing evidence. Application of T.J.S., 141 N.H. 697, 699 (1997); In re The applicant must prove good moral character and fitness by clear and law rests upon the applicant. Application of Appell, 116 N.H. 400, 401 (1976). admission.” Sup. Ct. R. 42(5)(a). The burden of establishing fitness to practice Fitness of the Supreme Court of New Hampshire in advance of such and fitness to the satisfacti on of the Standing Committee on Character and admitted to practice law shall be required to establish their moral character Supreme Court Rule 42(5)(a) states: “All persons who desire to be

argument was held. We now deny the application. Thereafter, both parties were allowed to file briefs or memoranda, and oral show cause why his application should not be denied. See Sup. Ct. R. 42(5)(k). applicant be denied admission. We issued an order instructing the applicant to Supreme Court (committee) filed two adverse reports recommending that the Bar. The standing committee on character and fitness of the New Hampshire PER CURIAM. The applicant seeks admission to the New Hampshire

Committee on Character and Fitness. Janet F. DeVito, of Concord by memorandum and orally, for the

Applicant ADM - 2004 - 176, by memorandum and orally, pro se.

(Standing Committee on Character and Fitness) IN THE MATTER OF BAR APPLICANT ADM - 2004 - 176

No. ADM - 2004 - 176 Committee on Cha racter and Fitness

page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home reporter@courts.state.nh.us. O pinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 Errors may be reported by E - mail at the following address: errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Hampshire, One Noble Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule p. 2 22 as 2

“sufficient positive characteristics of character and fitness to practice law.” eighteen mo tions in a ten - month period; and (3) the applicant’s lack of Vermont; ( p. 2 2) the applicant’s abuse of the judicial process, including the filing of deliberate and contumacious” conduct before the Windham Family Court in grounds for the committee’s finding included: (1) the applicant’s “willful, demonstrating the character and fitness required for admission to th e bar. The a second negative report. It found that the applicant had not met his burden of represented by counsel. Following the hearing, the committee voted to submit issues contained in the report, see Sup. Ct. R. 42(5)(j), at which he was The applicant requested a hearing before the committee to explain the

going litigation in Windham Family Court.” “apparent disdain for authority . . . that is reflected in the course of his on unsubstantiated reports of his effort to fight drug addiction in Montreal and his The areas of greatest concern to the committee were the applicant’s

the applicant in contempt of the Windham Family Court in Vermont. been fired from one of his jobs. The committee also discussed an order finding violations, of which fourteen had been incurred since 1991; and (6) that he had him; (4) a judgment for past due child support; (5) eighteen motor vehicle p arty, including three divorces; (3) two monetary judgments entered against financial obligation; ( p. 2 2) twelve civil matters to which the applicant has been a The report highlighted several areas of concern, including: (1) a past due

report. the interview and a follow - up investigation, the committee issued a negative proceedings. The committee interviewed the applicant on July 1, p. 2 20 03. After physicians and even a former wife, to the committee over the course of the recommendation from many sources, including law school professors, friends, the bar of New Hampshire on May 1, 2003. He submitted letters of The applicant submitted his petition and questionnaire for admission to

business for the past twenty years. degree in education and a law degree. He has owned and operated his own He also has two children from a for mer marriage. The applicant has a master’s The applicant is married and has two children from his current marriage.

nor limits our authority to take action. Id. at 699. the committee’s recommendation is advisory only and neither binds this court witness credibility and resolution of disputed questions of fact. Nevertheless, As a general rule, we accord deference to a fact finder’s determination of

admission to the applicant. T.J.S., 141 N.H. at 70 p. 2 2 - 0 p. 3 3. fitness should be resolved in favor of protecting the public by denying Mustafa, 631 A.2d 45, 47 (D.C. 1993). Any doubt concerning character and 3

trafficking situation in general in Montreal, and one report containing multiple reports to the Solicitor General of Canada on his view of the drug numbers associated with pers ons he suspected of being drug dealers. He sent people he suspected of being drug dealers, including license plate and phone written to police officers in Montreal, containing detailed information about suspected of being drug dealers. He presented numerous e - mails he has ticket for a traffic violation in Montreal while trying to locate people h e to and from Montreal while driving under conditions of extreme fatigue and one authorities. The applicant received at least three speeding tickets during trips passed out anti - drug literature and provided informatio n to law enforcement On these trips, according to his testimony, he counseled young drug addicts, The applicant began his frequent trips to Montreal while in law school.

Montreal. Family Court in Vermont, and worked ex tensively to combat drug addiction in and gender discrimination” at the Office of Child Support and the Windham contaminated area” in Brattleboro, exposed a “longstanding pattern of abuses o ut of communist Czechoslovakia, forced the cleanup of an “asbestos - Philadelphia to resist the Teamsters’ Union, secretly transported banned books worked as an inner city school teacher, helped organize taxi drivers in works. This commitment includes claims that he, among other activities, The applicant argues that he has dem onstrated a commitment to good

applying for admission as attorneys.”). id. (“What cannot be permitted in attorneys cannot be tolerated in those shall rely upon case law and the standards governing practicing attorneys. See Lane, 544 N.W.2d p. 3 367, 375 (Neb. 1996) (quotation a nd brackets omitted). We applicant’s good moral character must be made on an ad hoc basis.” Appeal of reviewing an application for admission to the bar, the decision as to an for guidance in the p ast, see T.J.S., 141 N.H. at 701, “th e fact is that in standards since its inception. Although we have referred to the ABA Standards determinations of character and fitness without the assistance of formal Requirements 1997 - 98 (1997). The committee has been making Conference of Bar Examiners, Comprehensive Guide to Bar Admission Association Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar and National promulgated by the American Bar Association (ABA Standards). American Bar suggests use of the Code of Recommended Standards for Bar Examiners character and fitness standards that have not yet been adopted. The applicant The applicant further objects to the committee’s use of proposed

evidence.” conclusions of those reports are generally unsupported by substantial “contain numerous errors, misapprehensions and misquotations. The The applicant contends that both negative reports of the committee p. 4 4

continuance. The applicant was informed that the court did not accep t faxed another motion to recuse the magistrate; the other was a motion for a On June 19, the applicant faxed two motions to the court. One was

documents by June 20, 2003. production of the documents. The applicant was or dered to produce the put such language in the order, but it was missing from the final order for them, as he claimed she had done in the past. The magistrate had agreed to records sealed so the plaintiff could not contact his customers and harass considered vital; the applicant wanted customer information contained in the make revisions. The final order lacked protective language which the applicant applicant, the attorney and the magistrate faxed the order back and forth to magistrate asked opposing counsel to draft the order. According to the the plaintiff, with certain financial and business records. The presiding On May 20, 2003, the applicant was ordered to provide his former wife,

judicial conduct committe e in March 2003, which was dismissed. on February 28, 2003; it was denied. He also filed a complaint with the him economic harm. The applicant filed a motion to recuse the new magistrate about the required time to file an affidavit of income and assets had caused between a pre - printed form and Vermont Rule of Family Procedure p. 4 4(g)(2)(D) against the State of Vermont in October 2002, asserting that a discrepancy presiding, which was granted in March 2002. He filed a third - party complaint canceled hearings. The applicant filed a motion to recuse the first magistrate progressed slowly, in part due to the number of motions filed and several enforcement of the child support order soon thereafter. The litigation support he was payin g. The Vermont Office of Child Support filed a petition for November 2001, the applicant filed a motion to modify the amount of child and therefore does not reflect poorly upon his character and fitness. In Family Court in Vermont. The applicant claims the contempt was reversed, We begin by addressing the issue of the contempt befor e the Windham

authorities in Montreal. there is no other evidence in the record of any response to the applicant from someone was working as an informant. Apart from the applicant’s testimony, other officer simply stated that it was his office’s policy not to disclose whether officer confirmed to the attorney that the applicant had sent him e - mails. The spoken over the phone with two law enforcement officers in Montreal. One The applicant’s attorney re presented to the committee that he had

and one providing a contact name for future correspondence. officials, one indicating when a particular officer would return from vacation trafficking. He also submitted two responsive e - mails from law enforcement allegations that members of the Montreal police force were engaged in p. 5 5

contends tha t the administrative judge erred in ruling that the tape defendant’s arguments are entirely unpersuasive. Defendant Viewed in light of these standards [of abuse of discretion],

motions for recusal of the magistrate: The Vermont Supreme Court also addressed the applicant’s numerous

excuse his noncompliance. been addressed through a motion to amend the order, and did not court here correctly observed that defendant’s concerns could have magistrate’s decision to seal the business records produced. The order becaus e it omitted an express provision reflecting the contends that he was excused from compliance with the discovery court, represent a persuasive defense. . . . Defendant also involved some form of alleged ex parte communication with the order to b e invalid because it was drafted by opposing counsel, or of discretion. . . . Nor does defendant’s claim that he believed the suggest that the court’s finding was clearly erroneous or an abuse we discern nothing in defendant’s arguments or the record to defendant’s violatio n was wilful, deliberate, and contumacious, and with the order. The trial court rejected the claim, finding that quash the discovery order relieved him of the obligation to comply faith” believed that his motions to recuse magistrate Gartner and Defendant asserts that he reasonably, mistakenly, or in “good

upon the applicant. Supreme Court, however, upheld the imposition of compensatory fines imposed purged when the applicant produced the requested documents. The Vermont Supreme C ourt reversed the contempt finding, as the contempt had been his repeated motions to recuse, to the Vermont Supreme Court. The Vermont The applicant appealed the finding of contempt, as well as the denials of

dismissed because he filed it pro se although he was represented by counsel. applicant filed two more motions to recuse the magistrate, one of which was ordered to pay the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,066. p. 5 50. The magistrate found the applicant guilty of contempt of court. The applicant was not conclude on July 22 and at its resumption on August 22, 2003, the 2003, at the hearing on the motion for contempt. The contempt hearing did be quashed. The applicant turned over the requested information on July 22, magistra te, in which he requested that all of the discovery orders issued by her 2003, the applicant filed a “continuation” of his motion for recusal of the On June 23, 2003, the plaintiff filed a motion for contempt. On July 3,

24, 2003. motions, a fact which he disputes, but he filed his motions by hand on June p. 6 6

Family Court cannot be deemed a normal part of the legal system. It is an abuse of the legal system. As has been extensively documented Windham it is difficult to see how a determined effort to reform a Court can be termed is fighting systematic abuses prevalent at the Windham Family Court: “Lastly The applicant’s response to this finding is influenced by his belief that he

has filed, including several motions to recuse. he has abused the j udicial process, as evidenced by the number of motions he Next we turn to the applicant’s response to the committee’s finding that

documents. contempt of court from June 20, 2003, until he produced the requested the applicant’s contempt was purged by July 22, 2003, he was, nonetheless, in party for any loss, including attorneys’ fees, ‘caused by the contempt.’” Whil e the court may award a sum of money sufficient to compensate the aggrieved from the defendant’s failure to obey the court order: “Under V.R.F.P. 1 p. 6 6(c)(3), Court upheld the fines imposed by the lower court to the e xtent that they arose judgment for that of the Vermont Supreme Court. The Vermont Supreme challenged. There is a difference.” We will not, however, substitute our The applicant cont ends that the contempt order “was not ignored, it was

parte communication has not been demonstrated. procedural error but did not demonstrate bias, and the alleged ex correctly noted that the alleged omission may have been a legal or communi cations with opposing counsel. The administrative judge the records to be disclosed, and by engaging in ex parte counsel for drafting the discovery order without a provision sealing the magistrate demonstrated bias by failing to sanction opposing remotely support defendant’s claims. Finally, defendant contends honest.” The cited questions and comments, however, do not to opposing counsel, and proof that the magistrate was “less than psychological effect,” as well as “gratuitous,” an improper “signal” that they “were not only pointless but bizarre and possibly for comments by the magistrate at a number of hearings, suggesting . . . Defendant additionally cites several questions and

defendant has not proved a “pattern” of error demonstrating bias. not demonstrate prejudice . . . and – contrary to his claim – administrative judge correctly ruled, however, that legal errors do the magistrate committed numerous procedural errors. The erred in declining to address in any detail defendant’s claim that proceedi ng. Defendant also contends that the administrative judge proceeding was relevant to the magistrate’s impartiality in this irrelevant, but defendant offers no persuasive rationale that the of an unrelated proceeding involving magistrate Gartner was p. 7 7

with others. suggest an intemperate disposition, and an unusual quickness to find fault his pleadings are indicative of his character and fitness to practice law. They contempt finding, his motions to recuse the magistrate and the overall tenor of prejudice and misconduct were warranted by the situation. His reaction to the convinced that the applicant’s reactions to the other perceived instance s of actions. We need only say that, after reviewing the entire court file, we are not not include in our analysis the applicant’s reactions to the court manager’s Whether her actions were improper is not a question we need to decide. We did The court manager’s summary of the litigation did not sway our decision.

to the Vermont Board of Bar Examiners. manager included a letter summarizing the events. This package was also sent including a copy of the recent Vermont Supreme Court opinion. T he court 2004, the court manager sent the committee updated filings in the litigation, a copy of the contempt order was included in the file transmitted. In August the committee that the applicant had been r ecently found in contempt of court; believe they greatly reflect upon his fitness and character.” She also informed manager stated, “I would urge you to read [the applicant’s] filings carefully, as I Court to the committee in res ponse to its request. In her letter, the court manager transmitted a copy of the applicant’s file at the Windham Family manager at the Windham Family Court. In September 2003, the court The applicant is particularly troubled by the actions of the court

applicant] the right to practice law.” sense that this entire contempt issue was for the purpose of denying [the after having been admitted. It was plain to anyone with an ounce of political w ere made by [the applicant’s] lawyer . . . . This was more or less his first case eighteen motions were made by opposing counsel, and that “six of the motions in a period of less than ten months, the applicant states that three of the In responding to the committee’s finding that eighteen motions were filed

risk of severe retaliation.” be clear that any direct attempt at correcting these situations will entail the were deleterious to the well - being of their respective communities. It ought to the neighborhood around Montreal bus station and Windham Family Court misconduct will have consequences: “It has been known for many years that corrupt institution, and that he believes that his attempts to correct its Family Court, that the applicant perceives the Windham Family Court to be a It is apparent from h is filings, both before this court and the Windham

years, that this was true.” that a person might have a reasonable belief, based on the evidence of many possibility that there might be ‘deeply ingrained institutional misconduct’ or aberration.” He states: “The Committee was unwilling to entertain the p. 8 8

right to see his children, though he claims to be representing their interests: claimed misconduct at the Windham Family Court than he has in pursuing his transcript indicate, the applic ant has shown more fervor in pursuing the at the Windham Family Court. As the following excerpts from the hearing upon the contempt issue, the motions for recusal and the alleged misconduct req uest to enforce the visitation order. The applicant has focused his energy members of the committee, the applicant revealed that he has ignored his own decency, where’s the law, who protects the children?” But when questioned by The applicant laments this fact: “Where’s the justice, where’s the

suc h hearing has taken place. hearing to be held within thirty days after such a motion is filed, but that no order for parent - child contact. He claimed that the Vermont statute requires a and his many motions to recuse, the applicant filed a motion to enforce an former wife over his motion to modify child support, the con tempt against him his children in his efforts for reform. In the midst of his legal struggles with his for what is right. He also challenges the committee’s finding that he is hurting Family Court as negative because he appreciates the opportunity to stand up The applicant responds that he does not view the events at the Windham

irrelevant subjects. committee asked him to address and often rambled about e. [The ap plicant] had difficulty focusing on the specific issues the were an attorney. Rules 3.1 and 3.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct if he d. [The applicant’s] conduct in litigation could be found to violate biased legal system. family while attempting to fix what he feels to be a corrupt and c. [The applicant] has harmed his own children, and others in his he deals with in guise of solving society’s problems. b. [The applicant] often creates unnecessary problems for those allegedly corrupt police. events in his life. Those he blames include courts, judges and a. [The applicant] has a pattern of blaming others for the neg ative

disregard for the rights and welfare of others in that: and good judgment a lawyer should have and has shown a 3. [The applicant] has shown an inability to exercise the reason

law.” Specifically, the com mittee found that: lacked “sufficient positive characteristics of character and fitness to practice Next we address the committee’s general finding that the applicant p. 9 9

applicant did not “believe that the omission of the vital protective order was order requiring him to produce certain financial and business records, the former wife’s attorney did not put the required protective language into the occur for specific, and sometimes nefarious, reasons. For example, when h is We are troubled by the applicant’s perception that relatively minor events

applicant] does hold Judge Hayes accountable and does assign blame.” been held] and Judge Hayes still has fail ed to schedule a hearing. Yes, [the judge: “Now it is seventeen times the legal limit [since a hearing should have motion to enforce an order for parent - child contact, he blames the presiding Despite the clear ev idence that the applicant never followed through with his

Mr. [Willard] Martin: I only bring up these questions, because it’s a

Applicant: I know. I know. I shouldn’t be representing

Mr. [Willard] Mart in: But here, sir, you have been spending your

Applicant: No, I believe that is not – that’s the case. And

Mr. [Willard] Martin: And in this order appointing the g uardian, p. 10 10

personnel and the committee as signs of prejudice against him. tendency to treat mistakes, if any, made by magistrates, judges, court recognition that errors will occur. The applicant has shown a worrisome rest of humanity. The existence of our appellate system is an explicit prey to the same mistakes, oversights and misunderstandings that beset the Judges and magistrates are people, who despite their best efforts, fall

pointed out with great clarity in the Motion to Reconsider. easily avoided errors of fact that were not corrected when they were opinion was written with such vituperative language and full of A nnis wished to keep buried. This is why the overturned contempt chance for scrutiny into areas that Judge Hayes and Attorney investigation. If [the applicant] can be discredited there is less cases and knew that [the applicant] would press for a full State th e malefactors at Windham Family Court knew about hundreds of

ethical violations, items not related to his contempt because, while he knew of only a few cases of The applicant suggests that he was initially ordered to pay damages for

to know if this is the case. seems to suggest t his but again, there is no way for [the applicant] drafted with this very case in mind. The Committee’s Commentary [The applicant] . . . has no way of knowing if the standards were (apparently) drafted during the pendancy [sic] of the present case. written by the very [c]omm ittee using it for the first time and This is precisely the wrong time to use an unapproved standard,

adopted, were written specifically for his case: He also suggests that the standards proposed by the committee, but not yet

language used to achieve that result. contempt for Bar Admission purposes as well as the extravagant the award, but also indicated disapproval of the use of a finding of not upon compliance,” refers not only to the clear excessiveness of Court’s disa pproval of finding that [sic], “focus on punishment and audience. [The applicant] suggests that the Vermont Supreme indicate that the New Hampshire Committee was the intended case had Bar Admission implications. Indeed the circumstances com pliance.” The Vermont Supreme Court was well aware that the Court partially because it, “focused on punishment and not upon The original contempt finding was condemned by the Supreme

was written with his New Hampshire bar admission application in mind: accidental.” The ap plicant also believes that the Vermont Supreme Court order p. 11 11

make it.” pleadings: “Again, this is an argument so absurd that only a lawyer could He also displays a general hostility to the committee throughout his

nature of an ex parte communication. [the applicant’s daughte r] will have a similar blood - memory of the Substantive Due Process. Over 120 years after the Czar’s edict, [the applicant] blood - memory of the nature of violations of could sell watches, repair watches but not both. This has given influence of the me smerizing Rasputin, had decreed that Jews Petersburg and come to America because the Czar, under the [The applicant] states his great - grandfather decided to leave St.

evidence, between the magistrate and his former wife’s attorney: ex parte communication, of which the Vermont Supreme Court found no exaggerated scale. For example, he draws the following parallel to the alleged The applicant also views the wrongs allegedly done to him on an

magistrate. the document production order led to a motion to recuse the presiding motions for recusal; for example, the absence of the protective language from blow them out of proportion. Similar small occurrences were behind his Rather, it is an example of how the applicant tends to take small incidents and former wife’s attorney’s minor error. This is no t an example of such conduct. The applicant somehow detects “unethical and disingenuous” conduct from his

business] is not and has never been a corporation. Corum knew, or ought to have known, that [the applicant’s for “all corporate records” of [the applicant ’s business]. Mr. disingenuous. For example, an earlier Discovery request asked of Attorney Corum that appears to be unethical and 3. The discovery process has been marked by conduct on the part

opposing counsel: deduces “unethical and disingenuous” conduct from a mi stake made by In his response to his former wife’s motion for contempt, the applicant

domestic violence?” lawlessness at Windham Family Court is probably the indirect cause - in - fact of believe that [the applicant] has disdain for author ity, than to consider that the on its own in his memorandum of law, he asks, “Is it more comfortable to committee and the Windham Family Court. For example, in a paragraph set off arguments and t he conclusions drawn therefrom, before this court, the We are also troubled by the reasoning displayed in the applicant’s p. 12 12

to discriminate between fact and faith, evidence and imagination, reality and exaggerate on the part of the applicant. “The practice of law requi res the ability misconduct that the applicant perceives. Rather, they reflect a tendency to Family Court took place, they do not rise to the level of prejudice and assuming for the purposes of argument that the alleged events at the Windham In re Admission to Bar of Com., 828 N.E.2d 484, 498 (Mass. 2005). Even

however, reflect adversely on the applicant’s fitness to practice law. integrity, and motivations of others involved in the process do, Repeated, unsupported, ad hominem attacks on the ethics, the ultimate question: whether the applicant is fit to practice law. exploration of the applicant’s fitness because it sheds no light on The conduct of someone else generally is not relevant to the

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in a similar case hel pful: considered relevant by the ABA Standards. We find the reasoning of the Abuse of legal process and violation of a court order are two factors

his fitness to practice law. applicant has not demonstrated sufficient positive cha racteristics to support the judicial process in an attempt to reform perceived misconduct. And the violated a court order, resulting in a finding of contempt. The applicant abused that the committee’s finding s are supported by evidence. The applicant Contrary to the applicant’s assertion, our review of the evidence indicates

evidence? other conclusory assertions that are offered without a shred of communication [sic], why should the Court give credence to the which the Chairman did not even realize that there we re bi - lateral equally embarrassing when she was present at the very meeting at this point, and opposing counsel can make a blunder that is [first and second negative reports] can be this wildly inaccurate on [The applicant] is loath to be discourteous, but if the autho r of the

In the same document he also writes:

abused discretion in three separate areas. Vermont Supreme Court opinion which held that Judge Hayes had letter claimin g that Judge Hayes had been upheld and reading the even after he saw that Attorney Annis had written her curious Employee that he abandoned all skepticism about their veracity, and blinded by the status of these individuals as Judge and Court Unfortunately the author [of the committee reports] was so dazzled p. 13 13

been violated because: (1) he was not provided with the right to confront procedural due process. The applicant argues his due process rights have Finally, we turn to the applicant’s claims that he has been denied

of proving by clear and convincing evidence his fitness to practice law. review of the evidence, we hold that the applicant has not satisfied his bur den equal basis, but not all will attain it. T.J.S., 141 N.H. at 702. Based upon our in intellectual attainment and character. All may aspire to it on an absolutely It is a peculiar privilege granted only to those who demonstrate special fitness right of every citizen, as is the right to carry on an ordinary trade or business. hinders his ability to practice law. The right to practice law is not an inherent and justice. We do not question these traits. It is h is lack of fitness that He is committed to helping others, and expresses a deep concern for equality We do not challenge the applicant’s assertion that he is a moral person.

Standards, supra v. the trust and confidence clients may reasonably p lace in their lawyers.” ABA secure in its expectation that those who are admitted to the bar are worthy of Lane, 544 N.W.2d at 375. “The public interest requires that the public be

legal s ystem are not worthy of such trust and confidence. threatening, or turbulent behavior toward others involved in the disruptive, hostile, intemperate, intimidating, irresponsible, businesslike manner. Attorneys who routinely exhibit abusive, thos e attorneys will conduct themselves in a professional and When members of the public engage attorneys, they expect that

at 374. who would be a counselor and advocate in the legal system. Lane, 544 N.W.2d 296 A.2d 492, 500 (Me. 1972). These characteristics are not acceptable in one proper basis for the denial of admission to the bar.” Application of Feingold, In addition, “[t] urbulent, intemperate or irresponsible behavior is a

In re Admission, 828 N.E.2d at 501.

practice law. that the petitioner has met his burden of proving that he is fit to petitioner’s mischaracterizations of other matters, we c annot say accusations he makes. Given all of this, coupled with the seeming lack of understanding of the seriousness of the about what he perceives to be misconduct by others shows a Moreover his penchant for hyperbo lic and dramatic language

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts helpful. hallucination.” Lane, 544 N.W.2d at 375. Again we find the language of the p. 14 14

JJ., concurred. BRODERICK, C.J., a nd NADEAU, DALIANIS, DUGGAN and GALWAY,

fitness. He failed to do so. that he was afforded the opportunity to establish his good character and . . . .” In re Admission, 828 N.E.2d at 501. Indeed it was by these submissions notice that the content of his submissions would be an is sue before this court the committee and this court. See Sup. Ct. R. 42(5)(a). The applicant was “on would be required to establish his character and fitness to the satisfaction of fitness to practice law in New Hamps hire. The applicant was aware that he This proceeding is intended to determine the applicant’s character and

applicant has not been charged with any crime. Converse, 602 N.W.2d 500, 506 - 07 (Neb. 1999). It is not a trial, and the into his character and fitness to practice law with a criminal trial. See In re the second negative report, the applicant seems to have confused this inquiry As to his second argument, that new charges against him were raised in

testimony be fore the committee and his filings with this court. his filings before the Windham Family Court, his filings with the committee, his character and fitness to practice law is based primarily upon his own words: evidence. Our finding that the applicant has not met his burden of proving his As to his first argument, the applicant was the only witness presen ting

omitted). Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 238 - 39 (1957) (citations

capacity to practice law. must have a rational connection with the applicant’s fitness or law, before it admits an applicant to the bar, but any qua lification qualification, such as good moral character or proficiency in its Amendment. . . . A State can require high standards of the Due Process or Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth any other occupation in a manner or for reasons t hat contravene A State cannot exclude a person from the practice of law or from

second negative report. witnesses against him; and (2) new “charges” against him were added in the