In re Arnold

Oregon Supreme Court

In re Arnold

936 P.2d 986, 325 Or. 301, 1997 Ore. LEXIS 41

CourtOregon Supreme Court

DecidedMay 15, 1997

DocketSC S43659

StatusPublished

This text of 936 P.2d 986 (In re Arnold) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Arnold, 936 P.2d 986, 325 Or. 301, 1997 Ore. LEXIS 41 (Or. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

This is a contested bar admission case. Petitioner, a present member of the California State Bar, seeks admission to the practice of law in Oregon. Applications for admission to practice law in Oregon, including any hearing necessitated by questions relating to the character or fitness of an applicant, are processed by the Oregon State Board of Bar Examiners (the Board). Rule 2.10, Rules for Admission of Attorneys. In this case the Board, after conducting a formal hearing, recommends to this court that petitioner’s application be denied.

Petitioner has the burden to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that he possesses the requisite good character and fitness for admission. Rule 9.45(6), Rules of Admission for Attorneys. After de novo review of the record and consideration of the arguments of the parties, Rule 9.60(5), Rules of Admission for Attorneys, this court is not persuaded that petitioner has met that burden. A discussion of the reasons for that conclusion would not benefit bench or bar.

Application for admission denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

This is a contested bar admission case. Petitioner, a present member of the California State Bar, seeks admission to the practice of law in Oregon. Applications for admission to practice law in Oregon, including any hearing necessitated by questions relating to the character or fitness of an applicant, are processed by the Oregon State Board of Bar Examiners (the Board). Rule 2.10, Rules for Admission of Attorneys. In this case the Board, after conducting a formal hearing, recommends to this court that petitioner’s application be denied.

Petitioner has the burden to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that he possesses the requisite good character and fitness for admission. Rule 9.45(6), Rules of Admission for Attorneys. After de novo review of the record and consideration of the arguments of the parties, Rule 9.60(5), Rules of Admission for Attorneys, this court is not persuaded that petitioner has met that burden. A discussion of the reasons for that conclusion would not benefit bench or bar.

Application for admission denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

936 P.2d 986, 325 Or. 301, 1997 Ore. LEXIS 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-arnold-or-1997.