1 / 28

State Regulatory Authority

State Constitution. ?Vests authority in state legislature and governor?Delegates certain powers to County Charters which vest authority in county council?Municipal charters set forth local jurisdiction which is vested in mayor, city manager, or council?Delegates implementation to local agencies via local ordinances.

Ava
Download Presentation

State Regulatory Authority

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


    1. State Regulatory Authority Part 1: Overview

    3. Separation of Powers US Constitution Bill of Rights-protect privacy, & free speech. Legislators-Full time, elected, w/ full staff Executive ? President w/ oversight over executive departments Judiciary-Appointed positions w/ independence State Constitutions Bill of Rights-protect privacy, & free speech. Legislators-Part-time, elected, w/o full staff Executive ?Governor w/ limited oversight & Fragmented cause many in executive are elected, e.g. Sec of State, treasurer, attorney general Judiciary-Most elected so political and less check and balance 1). St. Constitutions have bill of rights which provide for protecting privacy, free speech, education, equal protection and due process. There are a proliferation of blue ribbon commissions who generally serve advisory function or may have legislative powers--serve as administrative bodies; often volunteer, self-interest, with conflict of interests and exparte communications. 2. Legislators are part-time, lack professional staff, politically incestuous; oversight is more difficult 'cause of the number of commissions and agencies created. Use sunset review of agencies by giving them limited duration and requiring reauthorization and periodic review. 3. Unlike president, Executive is governor generally presides over executive issues-often fragmented, due to the number of agencies, many of whom have to elected. This minimizes extent of power by governor. If atty general and treasure are elected, gov. can't control prosecution, legal advise and spending. Greater number of elected officials the less executive power. Therefore, the biggest source of control by the governor is the veto. to control Power Elected 6. State courts are often complex, disorganized, and underfunded. To extent judges are elected officials, it politicizes the process which undermines the checks and balances and consistency of decision making. Often lack of formal procedure. 1). St. Constitutions have bill of rights which provide for protecting privacy, free speech, education, equal protection and due process. There are a proliferation of blue ribbon commissions who generally serve advisory function or may have legislative powers--serve as administrative bodies; often volunteer, self-interest, with conflict of interests and exparte communications. 2. Legislators are part-time, lack professional staff, politically incestuous; oversight is more difficult 'cause of the number of commissions and agencies created. Use sunset review of agencies by giving them limited duration and requiring reauthorization and periodic review. 3. Unlike president, Executive is governor generally presides over executive issues-often fragmented, due to the number of agencies, many of whom have to elected. This minimizes extent of power by governor. If atty general and treasure are elected, gov. can't control prosecution, legal advise and spending. Greater number of elected officials the less executive power. Therefore, the biggest source of control by the governor is the veto. to control Power Elected 6. State courts are often complex, disorganized, and underfunded. To extent judges are elected officials, it politicizes the process which undermines the checks and balances and consistency of decision making. Often lack of formal procedure.

    5. Scope of State Authority State has an affirmative power to confer positive benefits as an employer, welfare agent. Such power is wholly discretionary and constitutes a privilege, not a right for which constitutional protection is afforded. Focus on rights and entitlements of public employees, and citizens/residents Nature and extent of ability of government to restrict, terminate or condition such rights.

    6. Rights & Privileges Part 2: Due Process Protections

    7. Right vs Privilege Right Constitutionally protected. Require strict scrutiny--compelling state interest to overcome. Liberty interests should be afforded minimum due process. Right to pretermination vs post-termination hearing. Protected procedurally and substantively by due process and equal protection from unreasonable gov. intrusion. Privilege Conferred by statute or contract Government may impose conditions on individual entitlements or eligibility. Can give rise to a property or liberty entitlement which then imposes minimum due process requirements Notice, hearing, and decision on record in adjudication Property rights conferred by statute or contract Issues affect limitations imposed upon privileges . Fundamental Rights are constitutionally protected and require strict scrutiny--compelling state interest to overcome 1. Liberty interests arise from constitution and should be afforded minimum due process requirements. 2. Rights are protected procedurally and substantively by due process and equal protection from unreasonable gov. interference. e.g. citizenship, residency, privacy, speech, political assoc. (Most challenges do not involve rights) B. Privileges are not enforceable rights except as conferred by statute. State or government may impose conditions on individual entitlements or eligibility. e.g. welfare benefits, employment. Most statutes can confer privileges which give rise to a property entitlement which then imposes min. requirements, e.g., notice, hearing and reason, in order to take away. Property rts. require legitimate claim of entitlement per contract or statute. 1. Privileges are enforceable rights by virtue of statute. Possible to create an entitlement which gives rise to a property interest or liberty for which min. due process and/or equal protection should be afforded. 2. Most issues affect limitations imposed upon privileges 3. state or fed gov. may impose conditions on benefits it provides, however, those conditions cannot result in invidious discrimination, e.g. welfare benefits, employment -ask whether condition involves suspect classification and if it is reasonable basis for condition (balance test) 4. Impermissible conditions for which law will protect: cannot limit public speech, political beliefs unless it bears substantially upon function or responsibility, legal alienage v. citizenship.. Fundamental Rights are constitutionally protected and require strict scrutiny--compelling state interest to overcome 1. Liberty interests arise from constitution and should be afforded minimum due process requirements. 2. Rights are protected procedurally and substantively by due process and equal protection from unreasonable gov. interference. e.g. citizenship, residency, privacy, speech, political assoc. (Most challenges do not involve rights) B. Privileges are not enforceable rights except as conferred by statute. State or government may impose conditions on individual entitlements or eligibility. e.g. welfare benefits, employment. Most statutes can confer privileges which give rise to a property entitlement which then imposes min. requirements, e.g., notice, hearing and reason, in order to take away. Property rts. require legitimate claim of entitlement per contract or statute. 1. Privileges are enforceable rights by virtue of statute. Possible to create an entitlement which gives rise to a property interest or liberty for which min. due process and/or equal protection should be afforded. 2. Most issues affect limitations imposed upon privileges 3. state or fed gov. may impose conditions on benefits it provides, however, those conditions cannot result in invidious discrimination, e.g. welfare benefits, employment -ask whether condition involves suspect classification and if it is reasonable basis for condition (balance test) 4. Impermissible conditions for which law will protect: cannot limit public speech, political beliefs unless it bears substantially upon function or responsibility, legal alienage v. citizenship.

    8. Bill of Rights-First 10 Amendments States have same 5th amendment requirement under 14th Amendment.States have same 5th amendment requirement under 14th Amendment.

    9. What are Examples of Rights & Privileges? Rights Privileges

    10. What are Examples of Rights & Privileges? Rights citizenship, residency, privacy, speech, political assoc. vs. unreasonable search & seizure vs. cruel & inhuman punishment vs. discrimination on basis of race, gender, nationality Focus on Bill of Rights Privileges Welfare benefits Unemployment compensation Social Security Drivers license Privileges + Voting Public education Conferred by Statute

    11. Permissible vs Impermissible Conditions Impermissible conditions, e.g. limit right without substantial government interest Permissible conditions can be imposed: private speech, sexuality, caps on welfare benefits, personal searches on gov. property, e.g., school ok if reasonable. (But see State laws)

    12. Property Interests?Due Process Substantive due process- refers to the limits on what government can regulate; Procedural due process- refers to procedures by which gov. may affect individuals rights. Focus on procedural due process in admin law. Procedural safeguard of liberty and property in lawmaking is the political process. Due process was required only when a relatively small number of persons was concerned, generally in adjudication Property v. Liberty Interests A. General Protections 1. Fed gov and federal agencies are subject to 5th Amendment-provides no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. States subject to identical due process. 2. Substantive due process- refers to the limis on what government can regulate; 3. Procedural due process- refers to procedures by which gov. may affect individuals rights. Focus on procedural due process in admin law. -- Procedural safeguard of liberty and property in lawmaking is the political process. Due process was required only when a relatively small number of persons was concerned, generally in adjudication 4. Only deliberate decisions of gov officials trigger due process concerns. Relief to citizens is in the form of tort action. 5. At will employment does not require due process. Person can be hired or fired. Property v. Liberty Interests A. General Protections 1. Fed gov and federal agencies are subject to 5th Amendment-provides no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. States subject to identical due process. 2. Substantive due process- refers to the limis on what government can regulate; 3. Procedural due process- refers to procedures by which gov. may affect individuals rights. Focus on procedural due process in admin law. -- Procedural safeguard of liberty and property in lawmaking is the political process. Due process was required only when a relatively small number of persons was concerned, generally in adjudication 4. Only deliberate decisions of gov officials trigger due process concerns. Relief to citizens is in the form of tort action. 5. At will employment does not require due process. Person can be hired or fired.

    13. Liberty Interests ? Civil Remedy Tort action: Libel and Defamation, Intentional infliction of emotional distress Due process kicks in where reputational stigma attached to action, but there must be some other interest involved. Reputation alone is usually insufficient. E.G., Gov. takes action and publicly gives reasons to have a deprivation, then due process is required to address reputational interests.

    14. Landmark Cases Goldberg v. Kelly: Termination of welfare benefits; pretermination hearing required. Formal hearings require 1) timely and adequate notice of charges; 2) opportunity to present witnesses; 3) cross-examination; 4) address fact-finder orally; 5) right to counsel; 6) decision on the record, 7) explanation of the decision; and 8) impartial decision maker. Matthews v Eldridge: Termination of Social Security Disability Payments; Post-termination hearing okay No right to a pretermination hearing where 1) given notice for termination; 2) opportunity to submit facts via questionnaire to support condition; 3) final notice with reasons & opportunity to full evidentiary hearing. Focus on 1) private interest affected; 2) risk pf erroneous deprivation; and 3) gov. interest in fiscal administration.

    15. Question Melissa admitted to a state university with a full scholarship. First semester, professor reports that she has engaged in plagiarism. The penalty is loss of scholarship and expulsion. Q: Is she entitled to a pretermination hearing? Q: Would it matter if it were a private school like CWSL? Q: What if she admits she did it but claims ignorance that she thought if she included a footnote at the end of the paragraph or at through use of bibliography, that would be enough? Q: If they dont expel and no hearing, but put a notice in her record that is sent to the bar that has engaged in moral turpitude, then is it a violation? Q: If they had no hearing and an article appears in the student newspaper that she was expelled because of plagiarism? Melissa admitted to a state university with a full scholarship. First semester, professor reports that she has engaged in plagiarism. The penalty is loss of scholarship and expulsion. Is she entitled to a preexpulsion hearing? Yes, entitled to some sort of hearing prior to being expelled and cannot deny her scholarship without hearing. The terms of the Scholarship could be construed as an implied contract, so that if you fail to comply, then constitutes a breach. Would it matter if it was a private institution CWSL? Yes, unless CWSL has a policy that governs honor code violations such as plagiarism and includes a notice of charges and a hearing with an appeal process. Privilege is established on an implied contract theory. If she admits but claims ignorance that she thought if she included a footnote at the end of the paragraph or at through use of bibliography. No, per Codd there is no requirement that listen to mitigation since admission, but as a practical matter it would likely affect the level of sanction imposed. If they dont expel and no hearing, but put a notice in her record that is sent to the bar that has engaged in moral turpitude, then is it a violation? Probably not, because it was not made public, although one would argue that if she tried to go somewhere else, the school would disclose it. If the facts are false, she may have a state action vs institution for defamation, but there is no deprivation of liberty. If they had no hearing and an article appears in the student newspaper that she was expelled because of plagiarism. The Commentary is run by the students so university has no liability. However, if they comment to confirm then they have subjected her to a stigma that can give rise to violation under Siegert v. Gilley 500 US 226 (1991), requiring a stigma + action. There an employee at St. Elizabeths hospital agreed to resign, rather than be fired for poor performance. There was a letter in the file saying that was both inept and unethical and when the employee went to seek another job, was denied the job. Sue saying that deprived liberty without due process. Ct. said that inability to get another job was the effect of a damaged reputation. There was no suit for constitutional violation, although there may be one under state law for defamation. The court said that the damage to the reputation had to be an incident of the termination, meaning that they would have had to fire and then issue a public statement. Courts tend to be hostile to claims of deprivation of liberty through damage to reputation. As a practical matter, most private institutions try to adhere to policies and procedures imposed on state actors out of a sense of fairness. There needs to be a handbook with the policy set forth, but as long as it is posted on the website, there is no requirement that students specifically acknowledge receipt. Exceptions may be in the area of admissions or at religious institutions. Melissa admitted to a state university with a full scholarship. First semester, professor reports that she has engaged in plagiarism. The penalty is loss of scholarship and expulsion. Is she entitled to a preexpulsion hearing? Yes, entitled to some sort of hearing prior to being expelled and cannot deny her scholarship without hearing. The terms of the Scholarship could be construed as an implied contract, so that if you fail to comply, then constitutes a breach. Would it matter if it was a private institution CWSL? Yes, unless CWSL has a policy that governs honor code violations such as plagiarism and includes a notice of charges and a hearing with an appeal process. Privilege is established on an implied contract theory. If she admits but claims ignorance that she thought if she included a footnote at the end of the paragraph or at through use of bibliography. No, per Codd there is no requirement that listen to mitigation since admission, but as a practical matter it would likely affect the level of sanction imposed. If they dont expel and no hearing, but put a notice in her record that is sent to the bar that has engaged in moral turpitude, then is it a violation? Probably not, because it was not made public, although one would argue that if she tried to go somewhere else, the school would disclose it. If the facts are false, she may have a state action vs institution for defamation, but there is no deprivation of liberty. If they had no hearing and an article appears in the student newspaper that she was expelled because of plagiarism. The Commentary is run by the students so university has no liability. However, if they comment to confirm then they have subjected her to a stigma that can give rise to violation under Siegert v. Gilley 500 US 226 (1991), requiring a stigma + action. There an employee at St. Elizabeths hospital agreed to resign, rather than be fired for poor performance. There was a letter in the file saying that was both inept and unethical and when the employee went to seek another job, was denied the job. Sue saying that deprived liberty without due process. Ct. said that inability to get another job was the effect of a damaged reputation. There was no suit for constitutional violation, although there may be one under state law for defamation. The court said that the damage to the reputation had to be an incident of the termination, meaning that they would have had to fire and then issue a public statement. Courts tend to be hostile to claims of deprivation of liberty through damage to reputation. As a practical matter, most private institutions try to adhere to policies and procedures imposed on state actors out of a sense of fairness. There needs to be a handbook with the policy set forth, but as long as it is posted on the website, there is no requirement that students specifically acknowledge receipt. Exceptions may be in the area of admissions or at religious institutions.

    16. Question Melissa admitted to a state university with a full scholarship. First semester, professor reports that she has engaged in plagiarism. The penalty is loss of scholarship and expulsion. Q: Is she entitled to a pretermination hearing? Yes, implied contract. Q: Would it matter if it were a private school like CWSL? Yes, unless school policy re honor code. Process would govern. E.G. Notice and appeal rights. Q: What if she admits she did it but claims ignorance that she thought if she included a footnote at the end of the paragraph or at through use of bibliography, that would be enough? Not re violation, but impact on penalty or sanction. Q: If they dont expel and no hearing, but put a notice in her record that is sent to the bar that has engaged in moral turpitude, then is it a violation? Probably not, if not made public or disclosed to other schools, but may be state action. Q: If they had no hearing and an article appears in the student newspaper that she was expelled because of plagiarism? No, cause student newspaper, unless they comment and subject her to stigma. Melissa admitted to a state university with a full scholarship. First semester, professor reports that she has engaged in plagiarism. The penalty is loss of scholarship and expulsion. Is she entitled to a preexpulsion hearing? Yes, entitled to some sort of hearing prior to being expelled and cannot deny her scholarship without hearing. The terms of the Scholarship could be construed as an implied contract, so that if you fail to comply, then constitutes a breach. Would it matter if it was a private institution CWSL? Yes, unless CWSL has a policy that governs honor code violations such as plagiarism and includes a notice of charges and a hearing with an appeal process. Privilege is established on an implied contract theory. If she admits but claims ignorance that she thought if she included a footnote at the end of the paragraph or at through use of bibliography. No, per Codd there is no requirement that listen to mitigation since admission, but as a practical matter it would likely affect the level of sanction imposed. If they dont expel and no hearing, but put a notice in her record that is sent to the bar that has engaged in moral turpitude, then is it a violation? Probably not, because it was not made public, although one would argue that if she tried to go somewhere else, the school would disclose it. If the facts are false, she may have a state action vs institution for defamation, but there is no deprivation of liberty. If they had no hearing and an article appears in the student newspaper that she was expelled because of plagiarism. The Commentary is run by the students so university has no liability. However, if they comment to confirm then they have subjected her to a stigma that can give rise to violation under Siegert v. Gilley 500 US 226 (1991), requiring a stigma + action. There an employee at St. Elizabeths hospital agreed to resign, rather than be fired for poor performance. There was a letter in the file saying that was both inept and unethical and when the employee went to seek another job, was denied the job. Sue saying that deprived liberty without due process. Ct. said that inability to get another job was the effect of a damaged reputation. There was no suit for constitutional violation, although there may be one under state law for defamation. The court said that the damage to the reputation had to be an incident of the termination, meaning that they would have had to fire and then issue a public statement. Courts tend to be hostile to claims of deprivation of liberty through damage to reputation. As a practical matter, most private institutions try to adhere to policies and procedures imposed on state actors out of a sense of fairness. There needs to be a handbook with the policy set forth, but as long as it is posted on the website, there is no requirement that students specifically acknowledge receipt. Exceptions may be in the area of admissions or at religious institutions. Melissa admitted to a state university with a full scholarship. First semester, professor reports that she has engaged in plagiarism. The penalty is loss of scholarship and expulsion. Is she entitled to a preexpulsion hearing? Yes, entitled to some sort of hearing prior to being expelled and cannot deny her scholarship without hearing. The terms of the Scholarship could be construed as an implied contract, so that if you fail to comply, then constitutes a breach. Would it matter if it was a private institution CWSL? Yes, unless CWSL has a policy that governs honor code violations such as plagiarism and includes a notice of charges and a hearing with an appeal process. Privilege is established on an implied contract theory. If she admits but claims ignorance that she thought if she included a footnote at the end of the paragraph or at through use of bibliography. No, per Codd there is no requirement that listen to mitigation since admission, but as a practical matter it would likely affect the level of sanction imposed. If they dont expel and no hearing, but put a notice in her record that is sent to the bar that has engaged in moral turpitude, then is it a violation? Probably not, because it was not made public, although one would argue that if she tried to go somewhere else, the school would disclose it. If the facts are false, she may have a state action vs institution for defamation, but there is no deprivation of liberty. If they had no hearing and an article appears in the student newspaper that she was expelled because of plagiarism. The Commentary is run by the students so university has no liability. However, if they comment to confirm then they have subjected her to a stigma that can give rise to violation under Siegert v. Gilley 500 US 226 (1991), requiring a stigma + action. There an employee at St. Elizabeths hospital agreed to resign, rather than be fired for poor performance. There was a letter in the file saying that was both inept and unethical and when the employee went to seek another job, was denied the job. Sue saying that deprived liberty without due process. Ct. said that inability to get another job was the effect of a damaged reputation. There was no suit for constitutional violation, although there may be one under state law for defamation. The court said that the damage to the reputation had to be an incident of the termination, meaning that they would have had to fire and then issue a public statement. Courts tend to be hostile to claims of deprivation of liberty through damage to reputation. As a practical matter, most private institutions try to adhere to policies and procedures imposed on state actors out of a sense of fairness. There needs to be a handbook with the policy set forth, but as long as it is posted on the website, there is no requirement that students specifically acknowledge receipt. Exceptions may be in the area of admissions or at religious institutions.

    17. Occupational Licensing Part 3: Admission to Bar

    18. Licensing Exercised pursuant to states police power Rationally and reasonably related to health safety and welfare of the public. Purpose: Control entry and prescribe minimum requirements Effect: 1) reduces competition; 2) limit entry via high education costs; and 3) segment skills Bottom line: Certification & registration do not necessarily equate to competency . Test of police power: Rationally and reasonably related to health safety and welfare of the public 1. Licensing boards are created to protect consumer and minimize any adverse risks and effects of incompetency among service professions 2. Control entry into profession 3. Enforce standards of practice and issue regulations regarding same 4. Effects of licensing: 1) reduces competition, 2) limited entry via high education costs; 3) segmented skills which make it economically unfeasible to pursue (particularly in the health field); 4) fostered the cynical view that unethical practices will prevail unless entrenched get high incomes; 5) caused the proliferation of official administrative bodies to govern licensure; 5)systematically discourages minorities from becoming licensed by irrelevant criteria. Reality: certification and registration do not equate to competency so it is unclear if current system of licensing achieves the purpose. --Alternatives: May be better to give weight to those who are certified but don't prohibit uncertified from working, they simply cannot hold themselves out as members of the profession. Another alternative is to required mandatory registration of all those who wish to practice, which is automatic. Create an independent state agency, not linked to group to receive complaints, investigate and initiate revocation or other sanction.. Test of police power: Rationally and reasonably related to health safety and welfare of the public 1. Licensing boards are created to protect consumer and minimize any adverse risks and effects of incompetency among service professions 2. Control entry into profession 3. Enforce standards of practice and issue regulations regarding same 4. Effects of licensing: 1) reduces competition, 2) limited entry via high education costs; 3) segmented skills which make it economically unfeasible to pursue (particularly in the health field); 4) fostered the cynical view that unethical practices will prevail unless entrenched get high incomes; 5) caused the proliferation of official administrative bodies to govern licensure; 5)systematically discourages minorities from becoming licensed by irrelevant criteria. Reality: certification and registration do not equate to competency so it is unclear if current system of licensing achieves the purpose. --Alternatives: May be better to give weight to those who are certified but don't prohibit uncertified from working, they simply cannot hold themselves out as members of the profession. Another alternative is to required mandatory registration of all those who wish to practice, which is automatic. Create an independent state agency, not linked to group to receive complaints, investigate and initiate revocation or other sanction.

    19. Question Do you believe licensing should be more objective and less self-serving? If so, how would you do it? Would lay persons be qualified to review and determine who should have access?

    20. Constitutional Attacks: 14th Amendment Rational basis test Strict scrutiny Substantial relation ? Test focuses on relation between means and end sought ?applies where no fundamental rights are involved. ?Compelling state interest Applies where suspect class or affect fundamental rights ?gender-based rights ?substantially related to achieving objectives.

    21. Attorney Solicitation Considered commercial speech so cant ban but can imposed time, place and manner restrictions. May include name, address, ph. No. specialty (if certification required), price No misrepresentations or deceptions, quality of service warranties or in-person solicitation

    22. Attorney Licensing Standards must be clear, with criteria for eligibility; sated policy and standards for process, include notice and hearing w/ evidence, cross exam, findings Most states require graduate from ABA or AALS school; take bar exam; satisfy moral character requirements

    23. Bar Exam Large hall with 50-1500 applicants on 8 ft tables, 2 to a table. Cant leave area but can bring in food or beverage. Approved word processors ok, no computers. ADA special accommodations if received them in law school

    24. Moral Character Process: 4-6 months to determine good moral character. Burden of proof on applicant Grounds of Violation: Criminal conviction, fraud or unauthorized practice of law, violations of schools honor code, e.g. plagiarism, cheating, expulsion, professional discipline, license revocation or disbarment, material omissions or misstatements in applications. Considerations: Evidence of candor and honesty, respect for law and rights of others, fiscal responsibility, and records of fidelity and trustworthiness.

    25. Due Process Requirements Pre-denial meeting, non adversarial, voluntary Notice of denial with reasons Post-denial hearing before State Bar Court with notice, reasons, and appeal rights.

    26. Evidence of Rehabilitation Overwhelming evidence of reform and rehabilitation, including lengthy period of unblemished and exemplary conduct. Considerations of reformed character: 1) Nature of activity, 2) Aggravating or mitigating circumstances; 3) Restitution paid; 4) Age and education of applicant at present; 5) Satisfaction of sentence, probation; 6) Recommendations of others; 7) Voluntary rehabilitative activities, including career, civic, and family activities. Changes in attitude based upon applicant statements, statement of others, professionals and supervisory persons. Drug & Alcohol Abuse: Special recognition as a disease. Take record as a whole. Evaluation by qualified professional. Evidence of dependency and abstinence for two + years. Financial indebtedness is not relevant to moral character. Only if indebtedness is handled irresponsible, or not defraud creditors Changes in attitude based upon applicant statements, statement of others, professionals and supervisory persons. Drug & Alcohol Abuse: Special recognition as a disease. Take record as a whole. Evaluation by qualified professional. Evidence of dependency and abstinence for two + years. Financial indebtedness is not relevant to moral character. Only if indebtedness is handled irresponsible, or not defraud creditors

    27. Q: Which are grounds for disqualification? Cheating on law school exam or plagiarism Tax evasion Polygamy Murder Misrepresentation in filling out loan application Drug abuse Drug trafficking

    28. Q: Which are grounds for disqualification? Cheating on law school exam or plagiarism- YES Tax evasion-YES Polygamy-GRAY AREA Murder-DEPENDS ON CIRCUMSTANCES Misrepresentation in filling out loan application-YES Drug abuse-NO, BUT NEED TO SHOW REHAB Drug trafficking-NO, BUT NEED TO SHOW REHAB

More Related