 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Recommendation of the Board of Bar Examiners for the Conditional Admission of Ogilvie3/7/2001
Argued on November 28, 2000
Opinion Filed 3/7/2001
[ .] John C. Ogilvie Jr. petitioned this Court for admission to practice law in the State of South Dakota. This Court grants Petitioner conditional admission.
FACTS
[ .] In 1997, Ogilvie graduated from the University of Wyoming School of Law, an ABA accredited law school. That same year, Ogilvie sat for and passed the South Dakota Bar Examination. Prior to admission, however, the Board of Bar Examiners inquired into Ogilvie's past to determine whether he had the requisite level of character and moral fitness to practice law. Areas of concern included two DUI arrests, him being fired for failing a drug test indicating marijuana use, alleged acts of physical abuse of a girlfriend that resulted in the issuance of two temporary restraining orders, and allegations of interference with a divorce proceeding.
[ .] The Board conducted two hearings in regard to the initial application, on November 18, 1997, and on June 8, 1998, respectively. Although the Board had concerns about these apparent problems, it nevertheless recommended that Ogilvie be admitted to practice law in South Dakota on a conditional basis for three years. This Court, however, did not accept the Board's recommendation and denied Ogilvie's admission.
[ .] In 1999, Ogilvie reapplied for admission. The Board, without reservation, believed Ogilvie's explanations for the somewhat conflicting and sometimes unfounded allegations charged against him. Based on this third hearing before the Board, where he and others testified on his behalf, the Board unanimously agreed to recommend admission to the South Dakota Bar. Because he was unable to practice law in the interim time period between hearings, Ogilvie requested that his bar admission include supervision by a mentoring attorney for a year. The Board incorporated the suggested mentorship condition into its recommendation to this Court.
DECISION
[ .] Although we are not bound to accept the Board of Bar Examiner's recommendation, we give it "careful consideration." Petition of Reutter, 500 NW2d 900, 902 (SD 1993); Petition of Draeger, 463 NW2d 346, 347 (SD 1990); Petition of Husby, 426 NW2d 27, 28 (SD 1988); see also In Re Widdison, 539 NW2d 671 (SD 1995). A second-time applicant must prove good character and moral fitness to the standard of clear and convincing evidence. See SDCL 16-16-2.2; Petition of Trygstad, 435 NW2d 723, 724 (SD 1989), aff'd on reh'g, 447 NW2d 360 (SD 1989); Petition of Reutter, 500 NW2d at 901. " nless we hold denial of [admission] is final and unalterable, a position never taken previously, we must be open to the possibility that [an applicant] can so thoroughly reform that [admission] becomes fair and reasonable." In Re Pier, 1997 SD 23, , 561 NW2d 297, 300.
[ .] Ogilvie showed to the satisfaction of the Board that he had the requisite moral character to practice law in South Dakota. Ogilvie appeared forthright and candid about the concerns of the Board both in person and through documentation. For example, he listed the two DUI convictions, and the two protection orders placed against him by a former girlfriend on his bar application. A drug and alcohol counselor, Ms. JoSee Suess, examined Ogilvie as to his propensity towards substance abuse. Her expert opinion dispelled any concern the Board had of Ogilvie's drinking or drug use. Other witnesses, as well as Ogilvie, testified as to the other incidents of concern and his character. The Board found Ogilvie and the other witnesses to be credible. By the Board's assessment, the perceptions and explanations of the events by these witnesses dispelled the concerns of the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 South Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|