If Eric was to apply for admission to the bar, it is likely that he would be accepted due to past

precedence. According to rule 46€, an applicant must demonstrate “by clear and convincing evidence,

that the applicant possessed good moral character and general fitness to practice law…”. Good moral

character and general fitness can be difficult to show if the applicant has committed some kind of

misconduct. The difficulty is significantly increased if the act is of moral turpitude or would lead to

disbarment for a practicing attorney. Also relevant is how much time has passed; the more time that has

passed, the easier it is for recent acts of good moral character to outweigh previous misconduct. Special

consideration is given to the rules current lawyers follow. If the misconduct would lead to disbarment

and a lockout period from re-application, a comparable period should follow for a first time applicant

between the misconduct and their own application to the bar. Also considered are mitigating factors for

the misconduct. These include: age at the time of the incident, whether the applicant had legal training

or was in law school at the time, or pressures to commit the act. In addition, being forthright and

cooperative with any investigation would help their case. Finally, character references can be used to

show that despite the past error, the applicant still generally shows good moral character and general

fitness. Such references are more convincing if the misconduct was further in the applicant’s past.

From the court’s analysis of Sobin’s good moral character, we see that applicants can overcome

past misconduct by positively contributing to society and showing good moral character after the action.

Sobin worked the phones in his family’s escort business from ages 11 to 19. Eventually he left the

business to work on his Uncle’s cattle ranch. His mother later arrived at the ranch and attempted a

marijuana operation, which Sobin originally wanted no part in. Eventually, at the request of his uncle, he

helped the operation since it was being poorly run. He was detained by law enforcement, and pled guilty

to the felony count of conspiracy to manufacture a controlled substance. Later, he was tried and

convicted on many counts for crimes involving his family’s escort business. Both of his sentences were

suspended after their convictions, and Sobin was put on probation and ordered to perform community
service. The court stated that due to the substantial period of 10 years between Sobin’s misconduct and

application, they were more inclined to believe that he had good moral character. They point to the

productivity of his recent life, including internships and letters of recommendation. Relevant to this was

the letter of recommendation from the judge who sentenced him, for which he acted as a legal intern.

Finally, the fact that these offenses occurred prior to law school meant that the court found that he

should not be held to the same standard as a third-year law student. In this case, the court held that

past crimes do not preclude an applicant from admission to the bar, and that many factors can be

weighed against those crimes when determining good moral character.

In Mustafa’s case, the court decided that crimes of moral turpitude are heavily weighed, and

that a significant time must pass between such crimes and admission to the bar. Mustafa embezzled

money from his school’s moot court program, of which he was a co-chief justice, in order to help pay for

his sister’s bail. He took money on many occasions, but always repaid the same amount into the school

account later. At one point, he admitted to his co-chief justice Brennan that he had been taking money

from the account, and Brennan disclosed the misconduct to the dean. Since Mustafa had made full

restitution, the matter was disposed of. Mustafa also disclosed his misconduct to the law firm he clerked

at. When the court looked at Mustafa’s case, they turned to the nature of the crime as an important

consideration. Embezzlement is considered a crime of moral turpitude, which would mean that a

practicing lawyer caught doing it would face immediate disbarment, and would not be able to reapply to

the bar for 5 years. The court believed that a short period of time like 2 years was thus not enough time

since the misconduct for Mustafa to demonstrate good moral character. They were mindful of his

positive impact on the community since the conduct, but still ultimately held that crimes of moral

turpitude were very serious crimes that require a significant passage of time before admittance to the

bar.
 The case of Eric has several similarities to both of these cases. On the factor of time, it is closer

to the case of Mustafa. Sobin had a period of 10 years since the conduct, whereas 4 years have passed in

Eric’s case. This is still within the 5 year lockout period of lawyers from reapplication that the justices

considered relevant in Mustafa’s case, and in general is much closer to the 2 year time period of

Mustafa. However, it is important to note that the crimes committed by Sobin included multiple felony

charges, and also that his application had happened to be 10 years after his situation, which means that

we know that 10 years is sufficient for some serious crimes, but not whether 4 or 5 years would also be

adequate. Also, in Mustafa’s case, the misconduct was considered a crime of moral turpitude, which was

the reason why the 5 year lockout period was considered. Because of this, a seriously considered crime

of a DUI would most likely not require as much time to pass as one of moral turpitude or many various

felonies. Also relevant is that Eric has really only been getting help for his drinking for two years, so the

court might consider that as the relevant time period of good moral character, but even then the lack of

DUIs between those periods of time indicate some change of behavior. Therefore, the time period

would likely ultimately be enough for the court to seriously consider other factors in Eric’s case.

Sobin doubtlessly had more mitigating factors than Eric does, but Eric does still have a few.

Although Eric was in law school during his two DUIs, they were during his first year, and the court’s

standard for law knowledge was compared to a third year’s level in the case, which would be Mustafa’s

level. Therefore, though he should have had some knowledge of legal matters when the conduct

happened, he wouldn’t be held to the level of a practicing attorney like Mustafa was, because he simply

didn’t have adequate legal experience. Eric admitted both instances to the bar association, and

admitted them to the Dean after his second DUI. Not immediately admitting the first is certainly a

negative, however the dean still wrote him a letter of recommendation, which has parallel’s to Sobin’s

case where the judge who presided over one of his felony cases vouched for him, which the court

considered relevant. Therefore, the failure to disclose the first DUI to the dean, especially since it was
disclosed to the bar association, doesn’t seem insurmountable. Finally, his letters of recommendation in

general would probably be adequate to show good moral character since the time of the incident.

Again, the problem is Mustafa’s case was the particularly serious nature of the crime combined with the

2 years since it occurred, which prevented the court from giving his letters of recommendation as much

weight.

Thus, due to the fact that Eric’s crime was not one of moral turpitude, the court would likely find

that not as much time needed to pass in order for him to display good moral character. Since he has the

letters of reference and AA help that would demonstrate such character since the conduct, he would

likely be admitted to the bar.