Disclose expunged records?

[Holly]

...based on my review of Law School files or my firsthand knowledge

which would include the expunged question.

Yes, that would include the expunged question. The Dean could honestly say he has no knowledge of it. By the way, the Dean does NOT sign off on the whole C&F examination, he signs off on exactly what the question you posed states. The C&F process is much more than what the Dean of a law school sign off on.

And, in addition, the school can revoke your JD for not being truthful on your law school application. But again, if you feel like spending $150,000 to find out whether you should or shouldn\\\'t disclose an expunged record, go right ahead.

Please cite an instance where a JD was revoked for legally omitting an expunged record. Thanks prick.

courts have interpreted state statutes to treat your law school application in the same manner as one would an application to the bar.

Again, Paul, please cite this.

NO ONE here has provided a SHREAD of evidence that you are required by law to disclose it (thank you Agitator for providing evidence to the contrary). NO ONE here has provided a SHREAD of evidence that someone has been punished, reprimanded or denied admission to the Bar for legally omitting an expunged record on a law school application.

Brizz has thrown out shit like quotes about what is required on a Bar application (despite being told numerous times that no one disputes that), but no one has provided any evidence to support their argument... comon people, you can better than this!

[Holly]

My response to Paul:

thought

Nice try.

[orangeswarm]

Fair enough. How about this one?

In the Matter of the Application for Admission to Practice Law of: STEPHEN JOSEPH ROPER, Applicant.

DISPOSITION: Admission denied.

CASE SUMMARYPROCEDURAL POSTURE: The Oregon State Board of Bar Examiners concluded that an applicant's prior conduct did not appear to be indicative of character problems that were sufficient to disqualify for admission to the Oregon State Bar. Based upon that conclusion, the Board recommended that the applicant be conditionally admitted to the Bar.

OVERVIEW: The applicant had some prior lapses in judgment and had been arrested and charged with three misdemeanors in Rhode Island. He later was convicted of two of those charges by a plea of nolo contendere. He was also cited for various minor traffic offenses. Although the applicant's misdemeanors had been expunged, the applicant lied on his law school application when he answered "no" to a question that asked whether he had ever been charged or convicted in any court proceeding of a criminal nature, including major traffic offenses. The applicant also failed to disclose accurately his past conduct when he answered a question on his Bar application that asked whether he had ever been arrested for or convicted of violating a law including any municipal ordinance. He displayed a lack of candor during Board interviews when called upon to explain his lack of disclosure. He offered several conflicting and rambling explanations for the omissions on his applications, none of which were particularly credible. The applicant's lack of disclosure and candor caused the court to doubt seriously whether he possessed the necessary good moral character and fitness required under Or. Rev. Stat. § 9.220(2)(a) to be admitted to the practice of law.

OUTCOME: The court denied the applicant's request for admission to practice law with leave to reapply after one year.

[Holly]

Again:

The applicant also failed to disclose accurately his past conduct when he answered a question on his Bar application that asked whether he had ever been arrested for or convicted of violating a law including any municipal ordinance. He displayed a lack of candor during Board interviews when called upon to explain his lack of disclosure. He offered several conflicting and rambling explanations for the omissions on his applications, none of which were particularly credible.

That would be the BAR APPLICATION.

[orangeswarm]

Ahem:

Although the applicant's misdemeanors had been expunged, the applicant lied on his law school application when he answered "no" to a question that asked whether he had ever been charged or convicted in any court proceeding of a criminal nature, including major traffic offenses.

[Holly]

Ahem:

He lied on his BAR APPLICATION.... case closed. Show me where someone has been denied for lying on their law school application but been truthful on the bar application and was still denied... same thing with race, I would like to see an instance where someone was denied for marking the wrong race... there isnt one.

[The Agitator]

Although the applicant's misdemeanors had been expunged, the applicant lied on his law school application when he answered "no" to a question that asked whether he had ever been charged or convicted in any court proceeding of a criminal nature, including major traffic offenses.

Yes, but the court ruled it is a "lie" to not list expunged offenses on your law app. The court is calling that a LIE whether or not that solely was responsible for the denial.

[egrubs]

I can't wait to see Holly struggle with Stream of Commerce.

[Holly]

You\'re still here? Are you going to make more idiotic remarks about Bar applications that I can shoot down?

[The Agitator]

I think Holly takes the cake for my least favorite TLS poster ever; all the crudeness and offensiveness of some of our worst citizens, but without the humor of a Legal Trouble, or the underlying intelligence of a Mongoose.

[snowboarder2713]

I think Holly takes the cake for my least favorite TLS poster ever; all the crudeness and offensiveness of some of our worst citizens, but without the humor of a Legal Trouble, or the underlying intelligence of a ****.

C'mon more than Thom_Doe? Thom_Doe was like all over TLS, POSTED IN aLL CAPS kinda cause he couldn't spell or keep his caps lock on the entire time.

[The Agitator]

Wait a minute? Can you not post the word "Mongoose?"

[The Agitator]

M-o-n-g-o-o-s-e. Without the dashes - mongoose. What the F is going on?

Has the m-o-o-n-g-o-o-s-e's name become unutterable around here? What is going on mods?

[brizz9]

Many state bars expect a candidate to reveal all criminal or disciplinary charges even if they have been expunged. Failure to disclose an act or event such as the ones described below is a significant omission and can result in the immediate termination of your candidacy. Failure to provide truthful answers or failure to inform the Office of Admissions
of any changes to your answers may result in revocation of admission, disciplinary action by the UH Law Center, or denial of permission to practice law by the state in which you seek admission. Therefore, when in doubt, you should always err on the side of FULL DISCLOSURE.

I understand that information submitted herein will be relied upon by university officials to determine my status for admission and residency eligibility. I authorize the university to verify the information I have provided. I certify that I have read and understood this application, and I further certify that the information I have submitted is complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I agree to communicate promptly any changes in any matters covered herein promptly in writing to the UH Law Center, even if such changes occur after I have enrolled as a student.
I understand that upon the discovery of any inaccurate information contained herein, or omission of information requested herein, the UH Law Center reserves the right to reject my application, to withdraw any offer of acceptance, to cancel enrollment, to refuse to award a degree, to recommend revocation of any degree earned, or to administer appropriate disciplinary action. I agree that, if admitted, I will abide by the rules and regulations of the University of Houston and the University of Houston Law Center as they are now and may be in the future constituted.

Thank you. Good night.

[Holly]

Uhhhh every school says that dumbshit. It is perfectly complete and truthful to not disclose an expunged record. In fact, you are allowed to deny it under oath in court (in many states). Your point?

Also, there is no record EVER of a student being dismissed or their degree revoked because they legally omitted an expunged record. Why do you both posting material from law school websites? It means nothing.

[Holly]

Has the m-o-o-n-g-o-o-s-e\'s name become unutterable around here? What is going on mods?

------

A close source tells me this issue will be addressed on a national level very soon (I am totally serious). Apparently, there are some large websites that have learned about the TLS decision to silence a competitor (see L S M).

[brizz9]

Has the m-o-o-n-g-o-o-s-e\'s name become unutterable around here? What is going on mods?

------

A close source tells me this issue will be addressed on a national level very soon (I am totally serious). Apparently, there are some large websites that have learned about the TLS decision to silence a competitor (see L S M).

I think Holly is Mongoose. He was posting this nonsense in the chat. Wow, a message board decided to decided to ban a user who continued to spam the site under multiple aliases. Alert the media!

[Holly]

HAHA! I am flattered! I am not Mongy, although I am comfortable calling myself a friend (I hope).

[brizz9]

Uhhhh every school says that dumbshit. It is perfectly complete and truthful to not disclose an expunged record. In fact, you are allowed to deny it under oath in court (in many states). Your point?

Also, there is no record EVER of a student being dismissed or their degree revoked because they legally omitted an expunged record. Why do you both posting material from law school websites? It means nothing.

You are signing a contract that says you are being truthful to the question of whether you have been charged or convicted of a misdemeanor or felony even if it has been expunged. If you were and you say no, you're saying that you didn't have a charge or conviction expunged. Bar Examiners have access to your application where you say that. You will be asked that same question in the Character & Fitness examination, where, according to you, you can answer the exact opposite and have it not be an issue.

[Mongy]

....

[Holly]

You are signing a contract that says you are being truthful to the question of whether you have been charged or convicted of a misdemeanor or felony even if it has been expunged. If you were and you say no, you\'re saying that you didn\'t have a charge or conviction expunged. Bar Examiners have access to your application where you say that. You will be asked that same question in the Character & Fitness examination, where, according to you, you can answer the exact opposite and have it not be an issue.

----

If you are under oath and you say that you have NEVER been convicted of ANY crime, even one that is expunged, you are not breaking any law (even if you have an expunged record).

You would being 100 percent truthful in the eyes of the law if you signed that contract. No question about it.

When the law states you are not required to disclose and are allowed to deny a record, they mean it.

[Holly]

And thanks mongy. Dont get too gay though.

[Player30]

Holly - I just found this thread. Are you seriously a law school applicant, and a female? You can't seem to write without profanity or even spell the word "shred". Calling people "tools" and "retards" is beyond pathetic. No doubt you are fat and ugly. Shut the hell up and make me some fucking breakfast.

BTW, your argument sucks. I know lawyers. BE HONEST on applications. Have fun being avoided like the plague in law school.

[lawhooligan]

holly- where will you be headed to school next year?

[orangeswarm]

Ahem:

He lied on his BAR APPLICATION.... case closed. Show me where someone has been denied for lying on their law school application but been truthful on the bar application and was still denied... same thing with race, I would like to see an instance where someone was denied for marking the wrong race... there isnt one.

If you manage to make it into law school, you will soon find out that each case has many issues. An "issue" is a question that has an unclear answer based on the facts (sorry to be so remedial, but I think Holly may need this). The issue before the court was whether the applicant possessed the requisite moral character to pass the bar in that state. They looked at several factors, one being the fact that the student answered "no" on their law school application to a question as to whether they had ever been arrested. If that factor had been irrelevant and the case was "closed" simply because their answer on the bar exam, I assure you the court would have never even mentioned that fact in the opinion.

In a perfect world, there would be a case where a court addressed the exact question you are looking for and nothing else, but this isn't a perfect world. Just because a case doesn't come out and explicitly state, "Holly, you can be denied bar admission for failing to disclose your expunged record" doesn't mean that is not the case. If you can't see the connection in that case between lying on the law school application and that person’s denial, you are going to have a very difficult time in legal research/writing when, and if, you end up going to law school.