Rule 5.2 - Procedure of Demonstration of Good Moral Character(a)Form of application. - The applicant for admission to the bar shall file with the Board an application, in such form as may be prescribed by the Board from time to time, designed to obtain from the applicant such information concerning the applicant's personal history and previous conduct as may be necessary to determine his or her moral character and qualification for membership in the bar. A copy of the application shall be forwarded to the National Conference of Bar Examiners for investigation and preparation of a character report. Upon receipt of the report, the Board shall forward the report and a copy of the application to the District Character Committee in the district closest to the applicant's permanent residence or the district where the applicant proposes to practice law. (b)Burden of proof. - The applicant shall at all times have the burden of proving his or her good moral character before the District Character Committee, the Board, and the Court. If an applicant fails to answer any question on the application or propounded by any member of the District Character Committee, or to supply any documentary material requested by them, the Board or the Court may find that the applicant has not met the burden of proving his or her good moral character. (c)Documentary material. - The applicant agrees that any and all documentary materials filed by the applicant in connection with his or her application may be offered into evidence, without objection, by the District Character Committee or by the Board of Law Examiners in any proceeding in regard to the applicant's admission to the practice of law. (d)Procedure. - After receiving the application from the Board and the character report from the National Conference of Bar Examiners, the District Character Committee shall promptly, through one or more of its members: (1) determine whether to interview the applicant; (2) verify the facts stated in the application and character report, determine whether to communicate with the references given therein, and make such further investigation as it may deem desirable or necessary; (3) consider the character and fitness of the applicant to be admitted to the bar; and (4) transmit to the Board of Law Examiners a report of its investigation and its recommendation in regard to the character and fitness of the applicant for admission to the bar. If the Board ultimately determines that an applicant should not be recommended for admission, it shall make written findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of such recommendation. (e)Continuing nature of investigation. - The District Character Committee shall continue to have all applicants under observation and subject to further report to the date set by the Court for admission to the bar. Applicants shall be under the continuing obligation to notify the Board in writing of any change, and the nature of such change, relating to any information sought in the application. W.V. R. Admis. Prac. Law. 5.2
Amended by order entered June 26, 1990, effective 8/1/1990; and by order entered June 24, 1992, effective 7/1/1992; by order entered November 26, 2002, effective11/26/2002. Notes: For eleven factors which should be considered by courts in assessing the moral character of bar applicants whose backgrounds include criminal convictions, see In re Dortch, 199 W.Va. 571, 486 S.E.2d 311 (1997). An applicant who has previously been convicted of a felony or other serious crime carries a heavy burden of persuading the court that he or she presently possesses good moral character sufficient to be invited into the legal community. In re Dortch, 199 W.Va. 571, 486 S.E.2d 311 (1997). While applicant, who was convicted of bank robbery and felony murder over twenty years prior, may have demonstrated that he had been rehabilitated, the Supreme Court held that his horrendous crime outweighed his present good deeds and that it would be detrimental to the public interest and the public confidence in the legal profession to admit the applicant. In re Dortch, 199 W.Va. 571, 486 S.E.2d 311 (1997). See also Frasher v. West Virginia Bd. of Exmrs., 185 W.Va. 725, 408 S.E.2d 675 (1991); amended by order effective 10/5/2016