Lakes prima facie case of good moral character will most likely be rebutted by the State Bar, for

they can show that Lakes plagiarism was an act of moral turpitude and that she has not been sufficiently rehabilitated since the incident. Under Section 6060(b) of California Business and Professions Code, in order to be certified to the Supreme Court for admission to practice law, an applicant must demonstrate herself to be of good moral character. Bus. & Prof. Code 6060(b). Good moral character encompasses, but is not restricted to, the qualities of honesty, fairness, candor, trustworthinessrespect for and obedience to the law, and respect for the rights of others and the judicial process. Cal.State Bar Rule 4.40 (West 2010) The applicant has the burden of establishing her good moral character in a prima facie case to the Committee of Bar Examiners. Hallinan v. Comm. of Bar Examiners, 421 P.2d 76, 78 (Cal. 1966). If the Committee deems the applicant morally unfit for the practice of law, it must rebut the applicants prima facie case with evidence of moral turpitude. Id at 79. The applicant can establish those findings to be erroneous by proving that her past misconduct does not constitute moral turpitude, Id at 233, or that her present state of mind reflects total rehabilitation. Pacheco v. State Bar, 741 P.2d 1138, 1147 (Cal. 1987). In the present case, Lake can most likely establish a prima facie case. Therefore this memo will only address the issues of moral turpitude and rehabilitation. A. Moral Turpitude The State Bar can rebut Silver Lakes prima facie case by establishing that plagiarism constitutes moral turpitude. Moral turpitude is defined as everything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals and as an act of baseness, vileness

or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow men. Hallinan, 421 P.2d at 81. Fraudulent acts directly contradict an applicants fitness to practice law by demonstrating a lack of candor and truthfulness. Bernstein, 443 P.2d at 571. Plagiarism is a fraudulent act because it contains similar elements of deceit; Lake submitted another students work with the intention of misrepresenting the work as her own. The motivation of the violator is also important in determining moral turpitude; violations that are enacted out of deference to a greater societal good, rather than in selfservice, are considered less severe. Hallinan, 421 P.2d at 87. Furthermore, moral turpitude committed while the applicant is in law school is viewed as blatant disregard for the law due to the applicants clear understanding of his misconduct. In re Gossage, 5 P.3d 186, 200 (Cal. 2000) (finding that offenses committed during law school, including mishandling traffic matters in court, are particularly baleful because applicant was aware that his actions were unlawful). Incidences of dishonesty and deceit demonstrate a lack of truthfulness and candor on the part of the applicant that negates good moral character, and committing forgery and making false and misleading statements are instances of fraud that exemplify moral turpitude. Bernstein v. Comm. of Bar Examrs, 443 P.2d 570, 573 (Cal. 1968). In Bernstein, Hayes Allen Bernstein signed his former wifes name to a tax refund check issued to both of them, negotiated the check to a bank and received cash and credit for the check. Id at 573. He concealed this fact from his wife and led her to believe that he had not received the check. Id at 573. He also gave false and misleading statements in a verified answer, made false representations in a land transaction, and twice gave false

testimony. Id at 573. The court held that the single incident of forgery would be enough to rebut his prima facie case, and that his record as a whole showed a lack of good moral character. Id at 580. The court reasoned that the incidences of forgery, false representation, false statements and false testimony demonstrated a lack of truthfulness and candor with an absence of mitigating factors. Id at 580. An applicants misconduct must impair his fitness or capacity to practice law, and conscientious objections to the law through acts of civil disobedience are not dishonest in nature and therefore do not constitute moral turpitude. Hallinan, 421 P.2d at 89. In Hallinan v. Committee of Bar Examiners, the applicant, Terrence Hallinan, was convicted of multiple misdemeanors for unlawful assembly and disturbing the peace. Id at 82. The court held that Hallinan did not commit acts of moral turpitude and did possess the requisite good moral character for admission to the bar. Id at 95. The court reasoned that Hallinans civil disobedience was not an issue of manifest dishonesty and was not reflective of how he would perform in the legal profession. Id at 93. The court reasoned that those acts that warranted nonadmission all contained similar elements of fraud and dishonesty, such as obtaining credit through misrepresentation, filing false statements, forgery, and cheating, which were conspicuously absent in this case. Id at 88. Here, Lake will likely be found to have committed moral turpitude because her act of plagiarizing an entire paper demonstrates dishonesty and deceit, traits that directly inhibit her fitness and capacity to practice law. Lake attached her name to a paper written by another student, and in Bernstein, the applicant forged his wifes name on a check. Bernstein, 443 P.2d 570 at 573. Both plagiarism and forgery are dishonest acts intended

to misconstrue the truth; Lake deprived the true author of attribution just as Bernstein deprived his wife of her share of the check. Bernstein, 443 P.2d at 575. Forgery and plagiarism therefore negate truthfulness and candor, two essential elements of good moral character. The distinction between Hallinans desire to enact political progress and Lakes deliberate deceit is essential to determining moral turpitude, for whether these activities involved moral turpitude is dependant uponthe motivation of the violator. Hallinan, 421 P.2d at 87. Lakes only reason for submitting a plagiarized paper was that she feeling overwhelmed by law school[and] just wanted to be done with the memo. Hallinan, meanwhile, acted out of a desire to change laws that persecute people on the basis of their race. Id at 237. Lakes actions were entirely self-serving: she plagiarized the paper in order to avoid her duties and obligations as a student. Hallinans reasoning was to serve others by ameliorating social injustices; the committee may therefore be more trusting of Hallinan and weary of Lake being unable to fulfill the moral obligations incumbent upon members of the legal profession Id at 245. Lakes motivation for plagiarizing is more akin to the motivation of the applicant in Bernstein, who committed several acts of fraud and false testimony with the motivation of misleading the other parties involved. Bernstein, 443 P.2d at at 573. Lakes plagiarism will most likely be evaluated as intentionally deceptive; her actions therefore directly impair the basic objects of the legal profession; they demonstrate, in a variety of ways, moral turpitude that is conspicuously absent [in Hallinan]. Hallinan at 240. (Too many quotes, come back and revise)

However, moral turpitude committed in law school is seen as particularly egregious, for the applicants are deliberately violating laws that they have spent several years studying. In Gossage, the applicant willfully failed to appear in court numerous times. In re Gossage, 23 Cal. 4th 1080, 1083, 5 P.3d 186, 188 (2000). The court stated that the degree of applicants misconduct was amplified because such misconduct occurred during law school. Gossage at 196. Lake had been studying law for two years prior to her plagiarism charge and most likely fully understood the repercussions of plagiarizing. Therefore, like in Gossage, Lake will be found to have committed moral turpitude due in part to her complete knowledge of the immorality of positing another students work as her own. Lake will counter that while her act of plagiarizing was morally suspect, it was technically legal and was also the sole blemish on an otherwise satisfactory record. While plagiarism of an unpublished paper carries heavy moral implications, it is technically legal. Incidences which are technically legal, but ethically suspect do not necessarily negate good moral character. See Pacheco v, State Bar, 741 P.2d 1138, 1147 (Cal. 1987) (finding that involvement in a child custody matter that was technically legal but ethically suspect should not bar admission). In Bernstein, the court stated that [c]ertain of the matters, if considered alone, are not of sufficient consequence to rebut his showing of good moral character. Bernstein, 443 P.2d at 580. The court in Bernstein refers to matters of false testimony, false statements, and fraudulent representations that would not negate good moral character. Id at 580. Similarly, Lake can state that a single

incident of plagiarism, which is akin to fraudulent representation, should not be the sole factor deterring her admission. Lakes technically legal isolated incident of misconduct thus should not bar her admission. However, immorality does not necessarily hinge on illegality, and sole incidents have also sufficed to show moral turpitude. While the court in Bernstein found that certain sole incidents should not bar an applicant from admission, they continued on to say that a single matter such as the 1966 forgery and accompanying deceit, clearly rebuts [applicants prima facie case]. Bernstein, 443 P.2d at 580. Similarly, Lakes single incident of plagiarism and accompanying deceit will likely be found to rebut her prima facie case, for taking undue credit for an entire paper is more akin to a serious matter such as forgery than to Bernsteins less significant misgivings. Silver Lake will most likely be found to have committed moral turpitude by plagiarizing an entire paper because her actions were dishonest, demonstrated deceitful intent, and occurred during law school. B. Rehabilitation Silver Lake will most likely not be able to establish rehabilitation because of the insufficient passage of time, insufficient testimony as to her present good moral character, and her lack of true remorse. Rehabilitation is defined as a state of mind that reflects reformation and regeneration. Pacheco, 741 P.2d at 1147. The applicant must prove that her state of mind reflects complete change from the state she was in when

she committed moral turpitude. Id at 1147. This changed outlook is best illustrated by letters of character testimony from professionals who know about the applicants misconduct. Id at 1140. The amount of time elapsed between applicants act of moral turpitude and her application to the bar is also integral to determining rehabilitation; precedent cases indicate that ten years is a sufficient length of time to establish rehabilitation. Id at 1147. However, less time may be needed to demonstrate rehabilitation for less severe misconduct. See Hightower v. State Bar of California, 666 P.2d 10, 13 (Cal. 1983) (holding that four years after practicing law without a license petitioner was able to show rehabilitation). During this time the applicant must demonstrate not only good moral character but also exemplary behavior through public service and involvement in her community. Pacheco, 741 P.2d at 1147. Also, good conduct while the applicant is on probation carries less weight because stellar behavior is already expected of a person on probation; anything less would result in further prison time. Seide, 782 P.2d at 607. During this intervening period the applicant must also exhibit true remorse by accepting full responsibility for her prior conduct and acknowledging the wrongful nature of her actions. Id at 606. An applicant who has committed moral turpitude must adhere to each of these elements in order to demonstrate rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is dependant upon the passage of time and the applicants ability to prove that such time has changed him. The applicant in Pacheco, Charles Anthony Pacheco, demonstrated his changed state of mind from ten years prior through his record as a licensed private investigator, extensive involvement in the community, and twenty

letters from attorneys, judges and a doctor attesting to his present good moral character. Pacheco, 741 P.2d at 1138. Pacheco was involved in several instances of questionable moral turpitude prior to 1977, including counseling a murder witness on how to avoid subpoena, and in 1982 the Committee concluded that he did not possess the requisite good moral character for admission to the bar. Id at 1141. In 1987, the Supreme Court held that Pachecos pre-1977 misconduct was not determinative of petitioners moral qualifications and that he did possess the requisite good moral character for admission to the bar. Id at 1147. The court reasoned that his record as a licensed private investigator, his involvement in community projects, and the letters and testimony on his behalf provide a clearer, more accurate picture of his present moral character and rehabilitation than do his offenses from a decade ago. Id at 1147. Rehabilitation also requires taking responsibility for ones prior conduct and a high quality of character testimony, and by engaging in criminal cocaine trafficking while studying for the bar exam, excusing ones conduct through a lack of social stigma, and providing inadequate character testimony, an applicant fails to meet these standards. Seide v. Comm. of Bar Examrs, 782 P.2d 602, 608 (Cal. 1989). The applicant, George N. Seide, was arrested five times between 1975 and 1982 for drug-related offenses; in 1982 he was arrested for cocaine distribution, served a six month sentence, and was placed on probation until 1988. Id at 603. In 1989 the court held that Seide had not demonstrated sufficient rehabilitation to be admitted to practice. Id at 608. The court reasoned that the serious nature of Seides crimes, along with the recency of his release from probation, warranted nonadmission. Id at 608. Probation reduces the impact of his

good behavior because his actions were being watched and regulated during that time and therefore good behavior was not an option but a necessity. Id at 605. Here, Lake will likely not be found to have rehabilitated herself because she has not demonstrated a wholly changed state of mind. The passage of time is key to determining a changed outlook. Pacheco, 741 P.2d at 1147. In Pacheco, the applicant waited ten years after his last significant case of misconduct before reapplying for admission. Id at 1145. On the other hand, only four years have passed since Lakes misconduct. The passage of time in Lakes case is more synonymous with that in Seide, in which the applicant applied to the bar only four years after his most recent arrest and only one year after being released from probation. Seide 782 P.2d at 603. It is imperative for the applicant to have ample time to reform himself; in the ten intervening years after his misconduct, Pacheco was able to build a substantial record as a private investigator who gave back to the community through pro-bono work. Pacheco, 741 P.2d at 1147. Meanwhile, Lake has not had sufficient time to establish exemplary conduct; although she provided for herself and her mother, she did not reach out to the community to exceed expectations. This changed outlook is also evidenced when the applicant takes full responsibility for his prior actions and shows substantial signs of remorse over his prior behavior. Seide, 782 P.2d at 606. Like the applicant in Seide, who did not exhibit significant remorse, as evidenced by his declaration that he didnt [think there was anything wrong with drug sales] because of the way drugs were glamorized in Hollywood, Lake did not exhibit sufficient remorse by stating you have to understand that I was feeling overwhelmed by

law school. Each applicants statements displaced the burden of their guilt onto secondary parties; Seide did so by blaming the movie industry for his actions and Lake by blaming the pressures of law school. Id at 606. Lakes case aligns far more with Seide than Pacheco because neither Lake nor Seide demonstrated the requisite remorse or change, the lack of which was shown through their insufficient character evidence. While Pacheco provided twenty letters on his behalf that detailed his moral fitness, Lake provided only two letters, one cursory letter by a professor and one by her mother. Pacheco, 741 P.2d at 1145. The quantity and quality of Pachecos letters greatly outweighed those provided by Lake; nineteen of his letters were written by attorneys who fully understood the integrity of the profession. Id at 1143. Pachecos character references lauded his achievements, stating in sum that he is intelligent, conscientious, and honest[and] has devoted numerous pro bono investigative hours to minority clients[i]f in the past he had any deficiencies in his moral character, he has overcome them. Id at 1140. Meanwhile, Lakes professor stated only that she satisfied the requirements of the course[and] has sufficient integrity to practice law in California. This letter from Lakes professor did not actually praise Lakes reformation but rather stated that she met minimum standards of integrity; she did not excel, but rather satisfied requirements, and did not demonstrate honesty, like Pacheco, but only sufficient integrity. Her other letter, written by her mother, testifies that she is a hard worker but fails to address any other elements of good moral character. Lakes character testimony is thus insufficient to overcome a finding of moral turpitude. Lake will counter that her actions in the time following her misconduct showed

rehabilitation because she expressed remorse and four years is in fact sufficient time to show rehabilitation. In Hightower, four years was sufficient to show that applicant met the burden of rehabilitation after practicing law without a license. Hightower, 666 P.2d at 13. Similarly, four years have passed since Lake plagiarized. Lake will therefore argue that her case is analogous to Hightower and she should be admitted to practice. However, Lakes case is not in fact analogous to Hightower. Her moral turpitude occurred during law school, lending it greater weight, and was also a more severe infraction; more severe misconduct requires a longer time for rehabilitation. Seide, 782 P.2d at 606. Furthermore, Hightower presented a number of witnesses who testified to his honesty, integrity, industriousness, sincerity and good moral character, while Lakes two character references failed to elucidate such qualities. Id at 12. Therefore Lake cannot properly analogize her case to Hightowers. Furthermore, if Lake were to be considered rehabilitated, this decision would open the practice to other applicants who are of unsound moral character. The committee should rebut any evidence of rehabilitation by illustrating that it is of utmost importance that an attorney understand the moral discrepancies inherent to all legal issues, and Lake has not done so as to the issue of plagiarism. It will likely be shown that Lake has not illustrated sufficient rehabilitation because she has not fulfilled the requirements for passage of time, testimony as to her present good moral character, and TRUE REMORSE.