Character and fitness concern regarding address Forum

[C&Ffear]

Hello everyone,

After learning about the character and fitness portion of the bar I have become extremely worried that my living situation in undergrad may disqualify me from becoming a lawyer. My undergrad required that students either live on campus or with their parents as commuters. I was granted commuter status and then got an apartment. The only information that suggests that I had an apartment was a tax return from my first year in college and a car title. On the other hand, my fafsa information states that I was living with my dad. I was wondering, how egregious an error this was and if this would possibly destroy my chances of becoming a lawyer. Thank you.

[Brian_Wildcat]

I wouldn't be too concerned about it.

[ndbigdave]

Hello everyone,

After learning about the character and fitness portion of the bar I have become extremely worried that my living situation in undergrad may disqualify me from becoming a lawyer. My undergrad required that students either live on campus or with their parents as commuters. I was granted commuter status and then got an apartment. The only information that suggests that I had an apartment was a tax return from my first year in college and a car title. On the other hand, my fafsa information states that I was living with my dad. I was wondering, how egregious an error this was and if this would possibly destroy my chances of becoming a lawyer. Thank you.

I would not lose sleep over this.

Naturally, the best advice is to always be honest, but I dont see a scenario where this would be an issue. Naturally, I dont know what state you are applying to, but my assumption is that it isnt too different from the Michigan, Illinois and D.C. apps I have completed. Simply answer the questions (honestly) as they appear. One part will be your address over the last 10 years or so - just answer what your address was at each time. I highly doubt anyone will be cross referencing FAFSA forms and previous tax forms to look for small inconsistencies. To be perfectly frank, stating that you live at home for FAFSA (rather than on your own) likely lead to you being eligible for less money than the other way around.

Breathe easy, tell the truth, but I dont have any expectation you will have to answer any further questions about this issue.

[Nebby]

Pack it up. No way you're becoming a lawyer. Convicted felons pass character and fitness, but people who have slight discrepancies in their living situation from 6 years ago are toast

[ndbigdave]

Pack it up. No way you're becoming a lawyer. Convicted felons pass character and fitness, but people who have slight discrepancies in their living situation from 6 years ago are toast

haha

Well played.

I remember having bits of anxiety about different things with C&F (had some issues with credit and had a prior brush with the law). After speaking with a few people I was 99.9% certain I would pass C&F but not without having to do some extra explaining and meeting with the C&F committee.

What actually happened? I was honest, provided necessary paperwork and I ended up passing C&F with no issues or further investigation. I am aware of plenty of other folks with more serious criminal issues or problems that occured during law school who still passed C&F (mine was truthfully more minor and happened 10 years prior to seeking C&F approval)

That all being said, the advice is the remains the same - answer the questions that are posed, be honest, supplement when requested but I cannot see a scenario where you will have an issue.

[CAnow]

Pack it up. No way you're becoming a lawyer. Convicted felons pass character and fitness, but people who have slight discrepancies in their living situation from 6 years ago are toast

The sad thing is, the part that I underlined above is actually true.

[rpupkin]

Pack it up. No way you're becoming a lawyer. Convicted felons pass character and fitness, but people who have slight discrepancies in their living situation from 6 years ago are toast

The sad thing is, the part that I underlined above is actually true.

Why is that sad?

[bearsfan23]

Pack it up. No way you're becoming a lawyer. Convicted felons pass character and fitness, but people who have slight discrepancies in their living situation from 6 years ago are toast

The sad thing is, the part that I underlined above is actually true.

Why is that sad?

Seriously?

I'm sorry but someone like Shon Hopwood, the convicted bank robber turned GULC law prof, shouldn't be able to pass C&F.

Unless there are some serious extenuating circumstances, I'd be fine with completely barring convicted felons from the profession

[rpupkin]

Pack it up. No way you're becoming a lawyer. Convicted felons pass character and fitness, but people who have slight discrepancies in their living situation from 6 years ago are toast

The sad thing is, the part that I underlined above is actually true.

Why is that sad?

Seriously?

I'm sorry but someone like Shon Hopwood, the convicted bank robber turned GULC law prof, shouldn't be able to pass C&F.

Yes, I'm serious. I don't agree that someone like Shon Hopwood shouldn't be able to pass C&F. What's your problem with it?

[A. Nony Mouse]

Pack it up. No way you're becoming a lawyer. Convicted felons pass character and fitness, but people who have slight discrepancies in their living situation from 6 years ago are toast

The sad thing is, the part that I underlined above is actually true.

Why is that sad?

Seriously?

I'm sorry but someone like Shon Hopwood, the convicted bank robber turned GULC law prof, shouldn't be able to pass C&F.

Unless there are some serious extenuating circumstances, I'd be fine with completely barring convicted felons from the profession

Seems ridiculously overbroad.

[Nebby]

Pack it up. No way you're becoming a lawyer. Convicted felons pass character and fitness, but people who have slight discrepancies in their living situation from 6 years ago are toast

The sad thing is, the part that I underlined above is actually true.

Why is that sad?

Seriously?

I'm sorry but someone like Shon Hopwood, the convicted bank robber turned GULC law prof, shouldn't be able to pass C&F.

Unless there are some serious extenuating circumstances, I'd be fine with completely barring convicted felons from the profession

Why?

[ClubberLang]

Pack it up. No way you're becoming a lawyer. Convicted felons pass character and fitness, but people who have slight discrepancies in their living situation from 6 years ago are toast

The sad thing is, the part that I underlined above is actually true.

Why is that sad?

Seriously?

I'm sorry but someone like Shon Hopwood, the convicted bank robber turned GULC law prof, shouldn't be able to pass C&F.

Yes, I'm serious. I don't agree that someone like Shon Hopwood shouldn't be able to pass C&F. What's your problem with it?

It's a joke, and makes the entire C&F process a joke. Committees shouldn't be able to harass people for a complete record of traffic citations and underage drinking incidents, and at the same time give convicted bank robbers a pass. This harms public perception of lawyers. Practicing law is a privilege. I think there should be a bright line rule: either don't allow any felon to practice, or don't inquire into criminal backgrounds at all. The current practice is arbitrary and leads to confusing results.

The question that should be asked is why convicted felons should be allowed to practice law?

[Nebby]

Pack it up. No way you're becoming a lawyer. Convicted felons pass character and fitness, but people who have slight discrepancies in their living situation from 6 years ago are toast

The sad thing is, the part that I underlined above is actually true.

Why is that sad?

Seriously?

I'm sorry but someone like Shon Hopwood, the convicted bank robber turned GULC law prof, shouldn't be able to pass C&F.

Yes, I'm serious. I don't agree that someone like Shon Hopwood shouldn't be able to pass C&F. What's your problem with it?

It's a joke, and makes the entire C&F process a joke. Committees shouldn't be able to harass people for a complete record of traffic citations and underage drinking incidents, and at the same time give convicted bank robbers a pass. This harms public perception of lawyers. Practicing law is a privilege. I think there should be a bright line rule: either don't allow any felon to practice, or don't inquire into criminal backgrounds at all. The current practice is arbitrary and leads to confusing results.

The question that should be asked is why convicted felons should be allowed to practice law?

What a dumb false dichotomy

Convicted felons should be allowed to practice law becomes some felonies are not as serious as others. Some felonies have no bearing on the practice of law. I also believe in forgiveness of past sins if demonstrable change occurs. I don't deal in absolutes, so any bright-line rule is likely to be a hard no.

[ClubberLang]

Pack it up. No way you're becoming a lawyer. Convicted felons pass character and fitness, but people who have slight discrepancies in their living situation from 6 years ago are toast

The sad thing is, the part that I underlined above is actually true.

Why is that sad?

Seriously?

I'm sorry but someone like Shon Hopwood, the convicted bank robber turned GULC law prof, shouldn't be able to pass C&F.

Yes, I'm serious. I don't agree that someone like Shon Hopwood shouldn't be able to pass C&F. What's your problem with it?

It's a joke, and makes the entire C&F process a joke. Committees shouldn't be able to harass people for a complete record of traffic citations and underage drinking incidents, and at the same time give convicted bank robbers a pass. This harms public perception of lawyers. Practicing law is a privilege. I think there should be a bright line rule: either don't allow any felon to practice, or don't inquire into criminal backgrounds at all. The current practice is arbitrary and leads to confusing results.

The question that should be asked is why convicted felons should be allowed to practice law?

What a dumb false dichotomy

Convicted felons should be allowed to practice law becomes some felonies are not as serious as others. Some felonies have no bearing on the practice of law. I also believe in forgiveness of past sins if demonstrable change occurs. I don't deal in absolutes, so any bright-line rule is likely to be a hard no.

You asked "why" and attack me for answering. Nice guy. Anyhow, what felony has no bearing on the practice of law? Is it bank robbery?

[Thesaurus]

You asked "why" and attack me for answering. Nice guy. Anyhow, what felony has no bearing on the practice of law? Is it bank robbery?

He asked why and you answered and he attacked your answer (not you) because it was dumb.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Plenty of felonies have no bearing on the practice of law. Like how does possession of weed at some point say you can't be a decent lawyer? Barring the assumption that a felony is per se disqualifying, what felonies do you think should preclude someone? Do you think no one ever actually rehabilitates themselves after a conviction?

The comparison with DUIs is weird because I feel pretty sure that 1) the person who has to provide info about a past DUI passes c&f without much difficulty and 2) Hopwood had to provide a heck of a lot more information and jump through more hoops than someone with a DUI in their past.

[Person1111]

There is a very easy brightline if you want a rule: crimes of moral turpitude or dishonesty are disqualifying, other crimes are not.

[ClubberLang]

Plenty of felonies have no bearing on the practice of law. Like how does possession of weed at some point say you can't be a decent lawyer? Barring the assumption that a felony is per se disqualifying, what felonies do you think should preclude someone? Do you think no one ever actually rehabilitates themselves after a conviction?

The comparison with DUIs is weird because I feel pretty sure that 1) the person who has to provide info about a past DUI passes c&f without much difficulty and 2) Hopwood had to provide a heck of a lot more information and jump through more hoops than someone with a DUI in their past.

Possession of weed for personal use generally isn't a felony. If someone traffics in weed, then yes, I think it should be disqualifying. Someone who cannot follow the law should not practice it. And I don't think its enough that someone is capable of being a decent lawyer. If that were enough, wouldn't passing the bar be enough? As far as what felonies I believe should preclude someone, my opinion is that all of them do, but murder, rape, and fraud are sure bets. I do think that people can rehabilitate themselves, but I don't think that the profession should welcome these people.

[Nebby]

It's a joke, and makes the entire C&F process a joke. Committees shouldn't be able to harass people for a complete record of traffic citations and underage drinking incidents, and at the same time give convicted bank robbers a pass. This harms public perception of lawyers. Practicing law is a privilege. I think there should be a bright line rule: either don't allow any felon to practice, or don't inquire into criminal backgrounds at all. The current practice is arbitrary and leads to confusing results.

The question that should be asked is why convicted felons should be allowed to practice law?

What a dumb false dichotomy

Convicted felons should be allowed to practice law becomes some felonies are not as serious as others. Some felonies have no bearing on the practice of law. I also believe in forgiveness of past sins if demonstrable change occurs. I don't deal in absolutes, so any bright-line rule is likely to be a hard no.

You asked "why" and attack me for answering. Nice guy. Anyhow, what felony has no bearing on the practice of law? Is it bank robbery?

Couple of things.

First, if I wanted to attack you, I would have. Rather, I merely critiqued your opinion as a dumb false dichotomy: "either don't allow any felon to practice, or don't inquire into criminal backgrounds at all." I didn't call you dumb.

Second, you didn't actually respond to my initial question. I asked "why" shouldn't people with prior felonies practice law, and the closest your response came to answering was that allowing convicted felons to practice "harms public perception of lawyers." That's pure conjecture.

Can you please elaborate on two things: (1) why is public perception of lawyers the determining factor of who gets to practice?; (2) how does allowing felons to practice law harm public perception of lawyers?

[ClubberLang]

Can you please elaborate on two things: (1) why is public perception of lawyers the determining factor of who gets to practice?; (2) how does allowing felons to practice law harm public perception of lawyers?

No; I expressed an opinion, you didn't. You are just asking a likely endless cycle of questions. I will respond If you (1) make a reasonable defense of felons being allowed to practice law, and (2) state which felonies have no bearing on the practice of law.

[Nebby]

Can you please elaborate on two things: (1) why is public perception of lawyers the determining factor of who gets to practice?; (2) how does allowing felons to practice law harm public perception of lawyers?

No; I expressed an opinion, you didn't. You are just asking a likely endless cycle of questions. I will respond If you (1) make a reasonable defense of felons being allowed to practice law, and (2) state which felonies have no bearing on the practice of law.

The burden of persuasion lies at the foot of the one making an assertion. It was you who initially asserted that felons shouldn't be able to practice. It's your job to prove it. You can admit that you have no real reason for it other than conjecture, you can actually explain your reasoning, or you can evade and instead attempt to shift the burden to me.

It's apparent that you are self-aware enough to realize the incompetency of your opinion and opted to instead evade and attempt to shift the burden.

Unless you're willing to actually support your initial assertion, then I think we're done here. See Proverbs 26:4

[bearsfan23]

Plenty of felonies have no bearing on the practice of law. Like how does possession of weed at some point say you can't be a decent lawyer? Barring the assumption that a felony is per se disqualifying, what felonies do you think should preclude someone? Do you think no one ever actually rehabilitates themselves after a conviction?

The comparison with DUIs is weird because I feel pretty sure that 1) the person who has to provide info about a past DUI passes c&f without much difficulty and 2) Hopwood had to provide a heck of a lot more information and jump through more hoops than someone with a DUI in their past.

What an absurd response.

Possession of marijuana isn't a felony in pretty much all but 4 or 5 states, unless you have a significant amount on you.

On the other hand, armed robbery of a bank is a felony in every state.

I get you live in your own bubble and always think you're right, so there's no reason to waste time arguing with you. Just try asking regular people if they think convicted bank robbers should be able to be lawyers, see what response you get.

[bearsfan23]

Can you please elaborate on two things: (1) why is public perception of lawyers the determining factor of who gets to practice?; (2) how does allowing felons to practice law harm public perception of lawyers?

No; I expressed an opinion, you didn't. You are just asking a likely endless cycle of questions. I will respond If you (1) make a reasonable defense of felons being allowed to practice law, and (2) state which felonies have no bearing on the practice of law.

The burden of persuasion lies at the foot of the one making an assertion. It was you who initially asserted that felons shouldn't be able to practice. It's your job to prove it. You can admit that you have no real reason for it other than conjecture, you can actually explain your reasoning, or you can evade and instead attempt to shift the burden to me.

It's apparent that you are self-aware enough to realize the incompetency of your opinion and opted to instead evade and attempt to shift the burden.

Unless you're willing to actually support your initial assertion, then I think we're done here. See Proverbs 26:4

ClubberLang gave you a legitimate response, and you respond by being a fucking douchebag.

Good work Nebby. I didn't think it was possible, but losing your virginity has made you even more insufferable

[Thesaurus]

Plenty of felonies have no bearing on the practice of law. Like how does possession of weed at some point say you can't be a decent lawyer? Barring the assumption that a felony is per se disqualifying, what felonies do you think should preclude someone? Do you think no one ever actually rehabilitates themselves after a conviction?

The comparison with DUIs is weird because I feel pretty sure that 1) the person who has to provide info about a past DUI passes c&f without much difficulty and 2) Hopwood had to provide a heck of a lot more information and jump through more hoops than someone with a DUI in their past.

What an absurd response.

Possession of marijuana isn't a felony in pretty much all but 4 or 5 states, unless you have a significant amount on you.

On the other hand, armed robbery of a bank is a felony in every state.

I get you live in your own bubble and always think you're right, so there's no reason to waste time arguing with you. Just try asking regular people if they think convicted bank robbers should be able to be lawyers, see what response you get.

If you frame the question like that you'll probably get the answer you want. But I think most people are probably ok with someone like Shon Hopwood being able to practice law.

[Thesaurus]

There is a very easy brightline if you want a rule: crimes of moral turpitude or dishonesty are disqualifying, other crimes are not.

I don't want a bright line rule though.