Supreme Court
No. 2024-194-M.P.
In re J.M. :
ORDER
The applicant, J.M. (J.M. or the applicant), is before the Supreme Court on a
petition seeking admission to the Rhode Island Bar (the bar). This Court’s
Committee on Character and Fitness (the committee) recommended that J.M. be
granted a three-year conditional admission to the bar. At this Court’s direction, J.M.
appeared at a hearing to show cause why the Court should accept the committee’s
recommendation. For the reasons set forth below, we find that cause has not been
shown, and we respectfully decline to accept the recommendation of the committee
and deny the applicant’s petition for admission to the bar.
J.M. graduated from Roger Williams University School of Law (RWUSL) in
2022 at the age of forty-three. On June 1, 2023, J.M. filed an application with this
Court for admission to the bar by transfer of a qualifying Uniform Bar Examination
(UBE) score pursuant to Article II, Rule 1B of the Supreme Court Rules of
Admission of Attorneys and Others to Practice Law, which application was
subsequently amended six times.
-1- The application raised significant concerns relative to two academic
suspensions, one in college and one while attending RWUSL, as well as multiple
arrests and civil litigation matters. In accordance with Article II, Rule 4(c)(1), J.M.
met with an individual committee member, where the contents of her application
were discussed. As a result of that interview, the application was referred to the full
committee for further evaluation consistent with Article II, Rule 4(c)(3).
By letter dated August 18, 2023, J.M. was advised that her application was
referred to the full committee and that a preliminary hearing would be held on
September 19, 2023. That letter also informed J.M. that the hearing would be
stenographically recorded and that J.M. might appear with counsel. Additionally,
the letter advised that, in accordance with Article II, Rule 4(a), all applicants are
required to establish by clear and convincing evidence their good moral character
and fitness to practice law to the satisfaction of the committee.
The hearing took place as scheduled, and J.M. appeared without counsel. She
testified under oath and was questioned by the committee’s attorney and members
of the committee. J.M.’s testimony at the hearing, along with her application and
the subsequent amendments revealed the following.
J.M. was suspended from two academic institutions. The first suspension was
the result of poor academic performance when J.M. was a college student. The
-2- second academic suspension occurred when J.M. was in her early forties and a
first-year student at RWUSL.
This suspension stemmed from an incident in which J.M., following the end
of a dating relationship with a fellow classmate, enrolled the classmate in various
pornographic websites, without the classmate’s knowledge. With respect to this
issue, J.M. testified that she was “in a dating relationship with another student, and
he was in a dating relationship with quite a few other students that [she] didn’t know
about [and she] didn’t handle that betrayal very well, admittedly.” In reaction to
that situation, J.M. used the other student’s “school e-mail” to register him “for
numerous pornographic websites and [she] made a profile of the classmate on the
dating site using potentially embarrassing personal information.” J.M. described the
websites at issue as “counterculture.” J.M. conceded that she may have falsely
represented herself as her fellow classmate in making these registrations. J.M.
engaged in this conduct over a four-day period. Based on the preponderance of the
evidence, RWUSL found J.M. responsible for violating three provisions of
RWUSL’s Student Code of Conduct: (1) harassment or the creation of a hostile
environment, (2) sexual harassment, and (3) inappropriate use of the school’s
information technology to harass another or to transmit or make accessible
pornographic or sexually offensive material.
-3- As a result of her actions, J.M. was suspended from RWUSL for the remainder
of her second semester and the summer of 2019, a no contact order was put in place
between J.M. and the classmate at issue, and J.M. was required to attend counseling
prior to her return to RWUSL. It does not appear that criminal charges were filed
against J.M.
The committee also considered J.M.’s criminal record. Specifically, J.M. was
arrested at least seven times between 1999 and 2015. Excluding an arrest in
connection with a parking ticket, J.M. was arrested for: unlawful acts relating to
drugs; driving under the influence and a refusal to submit to a chemical test;
disorderly conduct, twice; willful trespass; and, simple assault, thrice (two of which
occurred on the same day). This criminal behavior occurred while J.M. was between
the ages of twenty-one and thirty-seven. Generally, the criminal matters were
dismissed, or the applicant received a filing or entered an “Alford Plea.” See
Camacho v. State, 58 A.3d 182, 188 (R.I. 2013) (explaining that an Alford Plea
occurs when a defendant maintains her innocence but acknowledges that there is
evidence in the case sufficient so that a jury could find her guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt).
Following the hearing, but before the committee rendered a decision, J.M.
requested that she be permitted to supplement the record with letters in support of
-4- her admission to the bar. The committee granted this request, and letters in support
of the applicant’s admission were submitted in December 2023 and January 2024.
On April 10, 2024, in accordance with Article II, Rule 4(d), the committee
notified J.M. via letter sent by mail and email, that it was recommending to the Court
that she be granted a three-year conditional admission. The conditions of admission
included monthly meetings with an approved mentor of the bar and mental health
counseling with reports of each to be submitted in a monthly or quarterly manner.
In its recommendation to the Court, the committee reasoned that it “found [J.M.] to
be credible and found that she met her burden of proving by clear and convincing
evidence that she possesses the requisite character and fitness to practice law in
Rhode Island.” Approximately one hour after receiving the committee’s letter, J.M.
responded by email to the Court’s bar administrator. Among other things but most
pertinent to the instant matter, J.M. stated: “Regarding the conditions, the decision
took an unconscionably and outrageously long time * * *.”
On April 19, 2024, this Court issued an order directing J.M. to appear before
the Court on May 30, 2024, to show cause why the Court should adopt the
committee’s recommendation. On May 22, 2024, counsel entered an appearance on
behalf of J.M. Two days prior to the show cause hearing, J.M. moved to further
supplement the record, and that motion was denied prior to the hearing.
-5- J.M. and her counsel appeared at the show cause hearing. J.M.’s counsel
argued that J.M is entitled to be admitted to the bar because she has been transparent
with the committee about her plethora of prior bad acts and answered questions in
an honest and forthright manner.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Supreme Court
No. 2024-194-M.P.
In re J.M. :
ORDER
The applicant, J.M. (J.M. or the applicant), is before the Supreme Court on a
petition seeking admission to the Rhode Island Bar (the bar). This Court’s
Committee on Character and Fitness (the committee) recommended that J.M. be
granted a three-year conditional admission to the bar. At this Court’s direction, J.M.
appeared at a hearing to show cause why the Court should accept the committee’s
recommendation. For the reasons set forth below, we find that cause has not been
shown, and we respectfully decline to accept the recommendation of the committee
and deny the applicant’s petition for admission to the bar.
J.M. graduated from Roger Williams University School of Law (RWUSL) in
2022 at the age of forty-three. On June 1, 2023, J.M. filed an application with this
Court for admission to the bar by transfer of a qualifying Uniform Bar Examination
(UBE) score pursuant to Article II, Rule 1B of the Supreme Court Rules of
Admission of Attorneys and Others to Practice Law, which application was
subsequently amended six times.
-1- The application raised significant concerns relative to two academic
suspensions, one in college and one while attending RWUSL, as well as multiple
arrests and civil litigation matters. In accordance with Article II, Rule 4(c)(1), J.M.
met with an individual committee member, where the contents of her application
were discussed. As a result of that interview, the application was referred to the full
committee for further evaluation consistent with Article II, Rule 4(c)(3).
By letter dated August 18, 2023, J.M. was advised that her application was
referred to the full committee and that a preliminary hearing would be held on
September 19, 2023. That letter also informed J.M. that the hearing would be
stenographically recorded and that J.M. might appear with counsel. Additionally,
the letter advised that, in accordance with Article II, Rule 4(a), all applicants are
required to establish by clear and convincing evidence their good moral character
and fitness to practice law to the satisfaction of the committee.
The hearing took place as scheduled, and J.M. appeared without counsel. She
testified under oath and was questioned by the committee’s attorney and members
of the committee. J.M.’s testimony at the hearing, along with her application and
the subsequent amendments revealed the following.
J.M. was suspended from two academic institutions. The first suspension was
the result of poor academic performance when J.M. was a college student. The
-2- second academic suspension occurred when J.M. was in her early forties and a
first-year student at RWUSL.
This suspension stemmed from an incident in which J.M., following the end
of a dating relationship with a fellow classmate, enrolled the classmate in various
pornographic websites, without the classmate’s knowledge. With respect to this
issue, J.M. testified that she was “in a dating relationship with another student, and
he was in a dating relationship with quite a few other students that [she] didn’t know
about [and she] didn’t handle that betrayal very well, admittedly.” In reaction to
that situation, J.M. used the other student’s “school e-mail” to register him “for
numerous pornographic websites and [she] made a profile of the classmate on the
dating site using potentially embarrassing personal information.” J.M. described the
websites at issue as “counterculture.” J.M. conceded that she may have falsely
represented herself as her fellow classmate in making these registrations. J.M.
engaged in this conduct over a four-day period. Based on the preponderance of the
evidence, RWUSL found J.M. responsible for violating three provisions of
RWUSL’s Student Code of Conduct: (1) harassment or the creation of a hostile
environment, (2) sexual harassment, and (3) inappropriate use of the school’s
information technology to harass another or to transmit or make accessible
pornographic or sexually offensive material.
-3- As a result of her actions, J.M. was suspended from RWUSL for the remainder
of her second semester and the summer of 2019, a no contact order was put in place
between J.M. and the classmate at issue, and J.M. was required to attend counseling
prior to her return to RWUSL. It does not appear that criminal charges were filed
against J.M.
The committee also considered J.M.’s criminal record. Specifically, J.M. was
arrested at least seven times between 1999 and 2015. Excluding an arrest in
connection with a parking ticket, J.M. was arrested for: unlawful acts relating to
drugs; driving under the influence and a refusal to submit to a chemical test;
disorderly conduct, twice; willful trespass; and, simple assault, thrice (two of which
occurred on the same day). This criminal behavior occurred while J.M. was between
the ages of twenty-one and thirty-seven. Generally, the criminal matters were
dismissed, or the applicant received a filing or entered an “Alford Plea.” See
Camacho v. State, 58 A.3d 182, 188 (R.I. 2013) (explaining that an Alford Plea
occurs when a defendant maintains her innocence but acknowledges that there is
evidence in the case sufficient so that a jury could find her guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt).
Following the hearing, but before the committee rendered a decision, J.M.
requested that she be permitted to supplement the record with letters in support of
-4- her admission to the bar. The committee granted this request, and letters in support
of the applicant’s admission were submitted in December 2023 and January 2024.
On April 10, 2024, in accordance with Article II, Rule 4(d), the committee
notified J.M. via letter sent by mail and email, that it was recommending to the Court
that she be granted a three-year conditional admission. The conditions of admission
included monthly meetings with an approved mentor of the bar and mental health
counseling with reports of each to be submitted in a monthly or quarterly manner.
In its recommendation to the Court, the committee reasoned that it “found [J.M.] to
be credible and found that she met her burden of proving by clear and convincing
evidence that she possesses the requisite character and fitness to practice law in
Rhode Island.” Approximately one hour after receiving the committee’s letter, J.M.
responded by email to the Court’s bar administrator. Among other things but most
pertinent to the instant matter, J.M. stated: “Regarding the conditions, the decision
took an unconscionably and outrageously long time * * *.”
On April 19, 2024, this Court issued an order directing J.M. to appear before
the Court on May 30, 2024, to show cause why the Court should adopt the
committee’s recommendation. On May 22, 2024, counsel entered an appearance on
behalf of J.M. Two days prior to the show cause hearing, J.M. moved to further
supplement the record, and that motion was denied prior to the hearing.
-5- J.M. and her counsel appeared at the show cause hearing. J.M.’s counsel
argued that J.M is entitled to be admitted to the bar because she has been transparent
with the committee about her plethora of prior bad acts and answered questions in
an honest and forthright manner. J.M.’s counsel also relied upon prior opinions from
this Court and argued that the committee did not abuse its discretion by
recommending a three-year conditional admission.
J.M. was also provided with an opportunity to address the Court. J.M. noted
that she has been a member of the Massachusetts Bar since 2022. During this time,
J.M. worked “of counsel” at a Massachusetts law firm, where she worked minimal
hours, and at a healthcare company in the field of data privacy and security. No
disciplinary complaints were filed against J.M. during this time. J.M. expressed
remorse for her conduct in law school and, when questioned about her email to the
bar administrator wherein she stated that “the decision [of the committee] took an
unconscionably and outrageously long time,” J.M. explained that her response was
her providing “feedback.”
Pursuant to Article II, Rule 4(a), an applicant “shall be required to establish
by clear and convincing evidence their good moral character and fitness to practice
law to the satisfaction of the Committee on Character and Fitness in advance of
admission to the Rhode Island Bar.” This Court, in turn, is charged with accepting,
rejecting, or modifying the committee’s recommendation. Article II, Rule 4(e)(1).
-6- “This Court ‘will not overturn a recommendation * * * unless [the committee]
has abused its discretion or its decision is clearly wrong.’” In re A.S., 173 A.3d 1280,
1284 (R.I. 2017) (quoting In re Webb, 58 A.3d 150, 154 (R.I. 2013)). This Court
will, however, overturn the committee’s recommendation “if such recommendation
is not well founded.” Id. (quoting In re Webb, 58 A.3d at 154).
The Court recognizes and appreciates the care and consideration that the
committee put into this matter. The applicant, by virtue of her troubling history that
was juxtaposed with support offered by her community, presented the committee
with a great deal to consider. The Court has no doubt that the committee struggled
with this matter and reached what it felt was the proper conclusion.
Despite the Court’s sincere respect for the committee and the critical function
it performs, the Court’s responsibility is to assure itself that the committee’s
recommendation is well founded. Based on the record before the Court, we simply
cannot find that.
The Court does not reach this conclusion lightly. It recognizes that J.M. was
forthcoming and transparent throughout the bar application and committee review
process. Additionally, J.M. has clearly earned the respect of many individuals,
including those in her law school community who wrote letters of support on her
behalf. Further, the Court is mindful that, although J.M. suffered certain academic
setbacks, she at other points excelled. J.M. graduated magna cum laude from college
-7- and was a high performing student at RWUSL who achieved academic and
extracurricular success as a member of the moot court team and law review.
Nonetheless educational achievements, while “praiseworthy, * * * are largely
irrelevant in establishing [an applicant’s] moral fitness and good character to
practice as a member of our bar.” In re Roots, 762 A.2d 1161, 1166-67 (R.I. 2000).
That is because they “do not necessarily equate to moral fitness and good character
* * *.” Id. at 1167.
It is that moral fitness and good character that are lacking here. The applicant
engaged in reprehensible conduct just as she was embarking on her quest to enter a
profession duty-bound by oaths and honesty. While the Court is mindful that many
applicants have youthful indiscretions, that is not what occurred here. The
applicant’s actions against her fellow classmate occurred when she was forty-one
years old and already in law school. A person of this age, and with the intelligence
reflected in the applicant’s academic accomplishments, presumably has developed
the ability to understand the consequences that naturally flow from their actions.
Moreover, this is not one poor decision that was made in haste; J.M. engaged in this
inappropriate behavior over a four-day period.
The Court is likewise disturbed by the applicant’s pointed and discourteous
response to what she perceived as a delay in the committee making a
recommendation. Aside from being discourteous to the committee—which we note
-8- is comprised of voluntary members of the bar who all have fulltime employment—
the applicant’s response displays a lack of insight into the seriousness of both her
conduct and the committee’s consideration of it. We deem this response to be
lacking in candor. It also undermines the applicant’s assertion that she has learned
to better control her emotions so that a situation such as that which occurred in law
school will not happen again.
These factors, taken in conjunction with the applicant’s multiple prior arrests,
reflect that the applicant does not possess the character and fitness to become a
member of the bar at this time. Therefore, we conclude that the committee’s
recommendation was not well founded based upon the totality of the information
presented in J.M.’s application and her subsequent conduct. The Court declines to
accept the committee’s recommendation.
For the reasons set forth herein, the applicant’s petition for admission to the
Rhode Island bar is denied. This decision shall not preclude the applicant from
reapplying for admission to the bar by filing a written request for consideration with
the committee no sooner than two years from the date of the issuance of this order.
The request shall include an updated response to the Petition/Questionnaire for
Admission to the Rhode Island Bar and a sworn affidavit, wherein the applicant shall
detail with particularity her activities and employment during the intervening period,
including any public service or volunteer work the applicant has performed. If the
-9- applicant reapplies for admission in accordance with this order, the two-year time
limitation on the transfer of her UBE score shall not apply.
Entered as an Order of this Court this day of July, 2024.
By Order,
____________________________ Clerk
Chief Justice Suttell and Justice Long, dissenting. We would accept the
recommendation of the Committee on Character and Fitness and grant J.M.
conditional admission to the Rhode Island Bar. We would, however, extend the
period of conditional admission from three years to five years.
- 10 - STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE Licht Judicial Complex 250 Benefit Street Providence, RI 02903
ORDER COVER SHEET
Title of Case In re J.M.
Case Number No. 2024-194-M.P.
Date Order Filed July 3, 2024
Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Justices Long, JJ.
Source of Appeal Character and Fitness Committee
Judicial Officer from Lower Court N/A
For Committee:
Chrisanne Wyrzykowski, Esq. Attorney(s) on Appeal For Applicant:
Richard Ratcliffe, Esq.
SU-CMS-02B (revised November 2022)