In the Matter of the Application of Alonya Renee Knight for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
Argued: April 9, 2019
Barbera, C.J., Greene, McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty,
Harrell, Glenn T., Jr., (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned)
JJ.
OPINION
McDONALD, J.
Alonya
Renee Knight has applied for admission to the Maryland Bar.
We must decide whether to grant her application in light of
the adverse recommendations of the State Board of Law
Examiners ("Board") and the Character Committee for
the Seventh Appellate Circuit ("Committee"). The
Board determined in a 3-2 vote, as did the Committee
unanimously, that she has failed to show that she currently
has the "good moral character and fitness for the
practice of law" required for admission. Upon our
independent review of the record, we agree with the Board
majority and the Committee, and deny her application for the
reasons set forth below.
I
Background
A.
Meeting the Character and Fitness Requirement for
Admission to the Bar
1. The
Requirement
Both
this Court and the General Assembly, which have reached a
"comfortable accommodation" in the regulation of
the practice of law in Maryland, [1] require that one who wishes
to engage in that practice satisfy a character and fitness
requirement as a prerequisite to admission to the Bar. This
Court requires that an applicant for admission to the
Maryland Bar demonstrate "the applicant's good moral
character and fitness for the practice of law." Maryland
Rule 19-204(d).[2] Similarly, the Legislature has specified
that "[a]n applicant shall be of good character and
reputation." Maryland Code, Business Occupations &
Professions Article, §10-207(b).[3]
This
Court has identified the character and fitness requirement as
a preeminent criterion for admission to the Maryland Bar.
"[O]ur obligation [is] to the public and to the legal
profession to assure that applicants seeking original
admission to the Bar possess the requisite moral character
and fitness to conduct the affairs of others both in and out
of court. No attribute in a lawyer is more important than
good moral character; indeed, it is absolutely essential to
the preservation of our legal system and the integrity of the
courts." Application of Allan S., 282 Md. 683,
689 (1978).
Every
American jurisdiction imposes a similar requirement for
admission to the bar. The lineage of character and fitness
standards for attorneys can be traced back to both ancient
Rome and medieval England. See Deborah L. Rhode,
Moral Character as a Professional Credential, 94
Yale L.J. 491, 493 (1984). In theory, a requirement of
"good moral character" should protect the public
from lawyers who are likely to engage in unethical conduct.
Michael K. McChrystal, A Structural Analysis of the Good
Moral Character Requirement for Bar Admission, 60 Notre
Dame L. Rev. 67 (1984). Thus, when an applicant is rejected
for failing to meet that requirement, one should be able to
articulate a rational connection between the basis of that
rejection and standards for the practice of
law.[4]
Id. at 68.
It is
easy to say that "good moral character and fitness to
practice law" is essential for admission to the Bar, but
it is less easy to say what that standard is. It is a quality
elusive of precise definition and often unrelated to
credentials, achievement, or past missteps. Although a full
definition of character and fitness may be beyond our
descriptive powers, candor and forthrightness are clearly its
foundation. In re Meyerson, 190 Md. 671, 687 (1948)
("No 'moral character qualification for Bar
membership' is more important than truthfulness and
candor"). The failure of an applicant to the Bar to
demonstrate those character traits in his or her application
is a warning sign that the applicant may be unable to conduct
a legal practice in accordance with the rules of professional
conduct.[5] Thus, the burden is placed on the
applicant to demonstrate those traits. A failure to be candid
and forthright in the bar admission process itself is
particularly likely to result in denial of an application.
McChrystal, 60 Notre Dame L. Rev. at 78.
2. The
Process
To
assess whether an applicant to the Bar meets the character
and fitness requirement, the Court has established a
character committee in each appellate circuit to investigate
each application for admission and to provide a
recommendation to the Board as to whether the applicant meets
that requirement. Maryland Rules 19-103, 19-204(a)(1). The
Board in turn reviews the work of the character committee and
makes its own recommendation to this Court as to whether the
candidate satisfies that requirement. Maryland Rule
19-204(b). The Court then makes an independent final decision
as to whether the applicant satisfies the requirement.
Maryland Rule 19-204(c).
At each
stage of the process, the applicant is entitled to a hearing
if it appears that there are grounds for denying admission to
the Bar. Maryland Rule 19-204(a)-(c). The hearings before a
character committee and the Board are conducted on the record
and may include testimony and other evidence. The Court's
evaluation of the applicant is based on the record developed
before the committee and the Board; the hearing before the
Court may include oral argument on behalf of the applicant.
At all times, the applicant bears the burden of proving his
or her "good moral character and fitness for the
practice of law." Maryland Rule 19-204(d).
The
character inquiry is an assessment made at the time of
application rather than at the time of any past misconduct.
For example, an applicant who committed a serious crime in
the past may satisfy the character and fitness requirement
with a showing that the applicant "convincingly
rehabilitated" himself or herself. Compare
Application of A.T., 286 Md. 507, 516 (1979) (granting
application after concluding that rehabilitation shown)
with Application of David H., 283 Md. 632, 641
(1978) (denying application after concluding that
rehabilitation "not … sufficiently
demonstrated"). A determination that an applicant has
not borne the burden of demonstrating good moral character
and fitness to practice law is not necessarily a death knell
as to the applicant's quest to become a lawyer.
Otherwise, a disbarred attorney would have no hope of ever
obtaining readmission. This Court has allowed for the
possibility of readmission of a disbarred attorney upon a
showing of good character. See Maryland Rule
19-752(h) (among other things, disbarred attorney must
satisfy character and competence requirements as a
prerequisite to reinstatement); In re Meyerson, 190
Md. at 675 (character requirements for original admission to
the Bar and for reinstatement after disbarment are
"expressions of the same principles"). Thus, our
focus is on the present and we cannot, and do not, say
whether, if ever, an applicant who fails on an initial
application may satisfy the character requirement in the
future.
B.
The Application and Evaluation of Ms. Knight
1.
Application
After
the dissolution of what she described as a troubled and
abusive marriage, Alonya Renee Knight graduated from college
and, in October 2016, at age 45, from the David A. Clarke
School of Law of the University of the District of Columbia.
In December of that year, she submitted her application to
take the Maryland bar exam. In that application, she
acknowledged her "duty to respond fully and candidly to
each question or required disclosure," as well as her
duty to update her responses to ensure that they remained
accurate up to the time of admission to the Bar. Ms. Knight
sat for and passed the February 2017 bar exam.
2.
Character Committee Investigation and Hearing
The
Board referred Ms. Knight's application to the Committee
and flagged certain matters, including her answers to
questions about delinquent accounts, civil actions, criminal
proceedings, and terminations of past employment. The
Committee member designated to investigate her application
interviewed Ms. Knight on May 19, 2017. A number of
discrepancies soon became apparent. After a thorough
investigation and some contentious follow-up communications
from Ms. Knight during May and June 2017, the Committee
investigator forwarded a detailed 20-page report to the full
Committee in July 2017. That report detailed among other
things:
• Five civil actions against Ms. Knight in Maryland
courts and two civil actions against her in the District of
Columbia Superior Court during the period from 1997 through
2012 were not disclosed in her application. In an interview
with the investigator, Ms. Knight professed to be unaware of
these lawsuits and stated that information concerning some of
the earlier actions may have been withheld from her by ...