In Re: Committee on Bar Admissions Cfn-1791

• Court: Supreme Court of Louisiana
• Decided: March 21, 2025
• Docket: 2023-BA-00159
• Status: Published

Opinion

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #014

FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

The Opinions handed down on the 21st day of March, 2025 are as follows:

PER CURIAM:

2023-BA-00159 IN RE: COMMITTEE ON BAR ADMISSIONS CFN-1791

ADMISSION GRANTED. SEE PER CURIAM.

Justice Jeanette Theriot Knoll, retired, heard this case as Justice Pro Tempore, sitting in the vacant seat for District 3 of the Louisiana Supreme Court. She is now appearing as Justice ad hoc for Justice Cade R. Cole.

Weimer, C.J., dissents and assigns reasons.

McCallum, J., dissents.

Knoll, J., dissents and assigns reasons. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

NO. 2023-BA-0159

IN RE: COMMITTEE ON BAR ADMISSIONS CFN-1791

BAR ADMISSIONS PROCEEDING

PER CURIAM*

Petitioner applied to take the Louisiana Bar Examination. However, the

Committee on Bar Admissions (“Committee”) advised petitioner that it could not

certify her to take the bar exam on character and fitness grounds. On petitioner’s

application to this court, we granted her permission to sit for the bar exam, with the

condition that upon her successful completion of the exam, she apply for the

appointment of a commissioner to take character and fitness evidence. In re:

Committee on Bar Admissions CFN-1791, 16-1269 (La. 7/6/16), 194 So. 3d 1129.

Petitioner ultimately passed the October 2020 bar exam. Thereafter, she filed

an application in this court seeking the appointment of a commissioner. We

remanded the matter to the Committee on Bar Admissions Panel on Character and

Fitness to conduct an investigation and appointed a commissioner to take character

and fitness evidence.

The proceedings before the commissioner primarily focused upon various

discrepancies and omissions in the applications petitioner submitted to the

Committee and the National Conference of Bar Examiners (“NCBE”). Following

the proceedings, the commissioner filed his report with this court, recommending

petitioner be admitted to the practice of law. The commissioner found petitioner

* Justice Jeannette Theriot Knoll, retired, heard this case as Justice Pro Tempore, sitting in the vacant seat for District 3 of the Louisiana Supreme Court. She is now appearing as Justice ad hoc for Justice Cade R. Cole. was a very credible witness who unequivocally acknowledged the errors she made

in her NCBE and bar applications, accepted responsibility for the errors, and

expressed regret for the additional work caused to the Committee by her errors. The

Committee filed an objection to the commissioner’s recommendation, and oral

argument was conducted before this court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XVII, §

9(D)(11).

Considering the commissioner’s recommendation and the entire record of this

proceeding, we conclude petitioner is eligible to be admitted to the practice of law

in Louisiana.

ADMISSION GRANTED.

2 SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 2023-BA-00159

Bar Admission Proceeding

WEIMER, C. J., dissenting.

I commend the petitioner for her tenacity and perseverance in her efforts to

become a member of the bar of Louisiana. However, I cannot approve her application

for the following reasons and respectfully dissent.

While a thoughtful hearing officer came to the conclusion the answers to the

questions posed on the application forms did not demonstrate a character issue, I find

the myriad of mistakes on the bar examination application forms, coupled with

inconsistent answers and confusing information related to her bankruptcy–all of

which must be considered, in addition to the fact she failed the bar examination five

times before passing1–demonstrate petitioner does not meet the fitness requirement

for admission to the bar.

Petitioner’s inability to competently complete the forms, her acknowledged

inability to understand the questions posed, the issues related to her bankruptcy, and

her numerous prior failures of the bar examination demonstrate she does not possess

the fitness required to be a member of the bar of Louisiana. I agree with the

conclusion of the hearing officer that petitioner did not intend to provide inadequate

answers to the questions posed and, thus, I do not have an issue with her character,

which is defined as “the inherent complex of attributes that determines a person’s

1 Effective July 1, 2016, Supreme Court Rule XVII, § 8(B) was amended to provide that after an applicant fails the bar examination five times, he or she “shall never be permitted to reapply.” However, the rule has been applied prospectively only. As a result, only the bar examinations that petitioner failed after the amendment (July 2016 and February 2017) counted toward her “five strikes.” moral and ethical actions and reactions.” VOCABULARY.COM DICTIONARY,

Character, https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/character (last visited February

24, 2025). However, I believe she has failed to prove her fitness, which, in this

context, is defined as “the quality of being qualified.” VOCABULARY.COM

DICTIONARY, Fitness, https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/fitness (last visited

February 24, 2025). Both character and fitness are at issue in this proceeding, and

petitioner bears the burden of proof. While petitioner attributes the numerous

inaccurate statements and omissions of information related to her bar examination

application forms and her bankruptcy to a variety of factors–misunderstandings,

language barriers, undue reliance on her bankruptcy attorney–in the end, she

concedes that she failed to exercise diligence. This admitted lack of diligence, and

the numerous errors and omissions that resulted, reflects adversely on her fitness to

practice law.

Our obligation is to protect the public and to ensure that those who pass the bar

examination demonstrate good character, and, in addition, the fitness to represent

clients. The inability to accurately complete forms necessary to take the bar

examination and mistakes related to her bankruptcy raise significant concerns related

to petitioner’s fitness to serve clients. Therefore, I must respectfully dissent.

KNOLL, Justice Pro Tempore dissents and assigns reasons.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to admit petitioner to the

bar. Based on my review of the record, I find petitioner’s prior conduct raises

significant questions as to whether she has sufficient competency for admission to

the bar in Louisiana. The record further establishes she has demonstrated a

significant pattern of dishonesty and lack of candor. In my opinion, petitioner clearly

lacks the requisite character and fitness for admission to the practice of law.