Law Grad Who Dissed Courts Loses Appeal Over Denied Law License

Constitutional Law

Law Grad Who Dissed Courts Loses Appeal Over Denied Law License

Posted Jun 4, 2008, 09:03 am CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss

Updated: A federal appeals court has tossed a civil rights and First Amendment claim filed by a law graduate who claims he was denied a law license because of his disdain for the Michigan justice system and his complaints about members of a bar and fitness committee who mentioned his views in a report.

The Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled (PDF) the claim by Frank Lawrence Jr. could not be pursued in federal courts.

Lawrence had told interviewers with the Michigan bar’s character and fitness committee that he had little respect for the state court system, and federal courts are the guardians of the Constitution. He also operated a website called StateBarWatch that criticized the State Bar of Michigan and the State Board of Law Examiners.

The committee recommended that Lawrence be denied a law license. “We are concerned about providing a law license to someone who, even before he has handled his first case as a member of the bar, has effectively written off such a huge component of the justice system,” it wrote.

Lawrence later contacted the employers of the committee members to complain, but it did no good. Law examiners accepted the committee's recommendation. Lawrence then requested a hearing, and examiners questioned him about the employer contacts. They went on to affirm the denial of the law license.

The 6th Circuit said Lawrence’s First Amendment claim was a direct attack on a state court judgment that was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. It also said state officials involved in the license denial had immunity from Lawrence’s civil rights claims.

The blog How Appealing comments: “It is too early to tell whether today's ruling will cause the plaintiff to dislike the federal judicial system almost as much as he apparently dislikes Michigan's state court system.”

For his part, Lawrence tells ABAJournal.com in an e-mail that he wasn’t surprised at the 6th Circuit decision due to the makeup of the panel. He plans to seek certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. “I have faith in the Supreme Court, and in particular Justice John Paul Stevens, who is the true guardian of our constitutional rights,” he says.

Lawrence says he holds the Michigan court system in low regard because a majority of Michigan Supreme Court justices have been hostile to civil rights plaintiffs. He says he doesn’t regret answering truthfully when the character and fitness committee asked about his political beliefs, and he would do it again.

In the meantime, Lawrence is employed by his lawyer, Dennis Dubuc, “who has dedicated his law practice to helping the underdogs of society,” Lawrence says.

Updated at 8 p.m. on 06-05-2008 to add comments from Lawrence and at 11 a.m. on 06-06-2008 to include information about Lawrence's complaints to employers of members of the character and fitness committee.

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by John Charles Thompson, Jr. - 4 months, 1 week, 4 days, 20 hours, 19 minutes ago

Who died and left authority to the Courts; the legislature; or the executive branch of our government the power to say that a person may not be represented by a person of his or her own choice?
Posted by mmejustice - 4 months, 1 week, 4 days, 18 hours, 59 minutes ago

Kinda smells like a constructive violation of Mr. Lawrence’s First Amendment rights. Yet another example of the fallout from nearly eight years of constitutional rights being treated like constitutional impediments to tyranny.
Posted by Gary L. Zerman - 4 months, 1 week, 4 days, 16 hours, 53 minutes ago

This decision clearly gives credence to the existence of the “Good Ol’ Boys Club” and that judges think they are gods, rather than - public servants. Further, it seems that it is impossible to reconcile this case with Fieger & Steinberg v. Michigan Supreme Court, Civil Action No. 06-11684, USDC-Eastern Dist., Southern Div., where USDC Judge Arthur Tarnow ruled (9/4/07) in favor of Fieger, finding that the Michagan Rules of Professional Conduct (the so-called ‘courtesy & civility’ provisions) were unconstitutional - as vague & overbroad - and violated 1st & 14th Amendment rights of Fieger, when he was disciplined under the rules for criticizing some Michigan judges - much more harshly than Mr. Lawrence. Fieger’s case earlier went up to the 6th Cir. and it allowed his case to continue. Where was the ABA when Lawrence was in need of some help?
Posted by Frank Lawrence, Jr. - 4 months, 1 week, 4 days, 13 hours, 21 minutes ago

We’re going to take this to the Supreme Court. The opinion makes no mention of the fact that this was an unreviewed decision of an administrative body that was created by the Michigan Legislature. There has been no “state court judgment”, and therefore, Rooker-Feldman cannot apply according to Exxon Mobil. Also, the panel omitted any mention of the fact that I asserted a reservation of federal claims and defenses during the state proceedings, which according to the law of the Sixth Circuit, should have avoided any Rooker-Feldman problems. DLX, Inc. v. Kentucky, 381 F.3d 511, 523, fn.9 (6th Cir. 2004); Barnes v. McDowell, 848 F.2d 725, 732 (6th Cir 1988); Wicker v. Bd. of Educ., 826 F.2d 442, 446 (6th Cir. 1987). Also, the denial of prospective relief conflicts with Dubuc v. Mich. Bd. of Law Examiners, 342 F.3d 610 (6th Cir. 2003) and Centifanti v. Nix, 865 F.2d 1422, 1430 (3d Cir 1989). If anyone would like to help me try to get this thing reversed, please contact me. Thanks.
Posted by Philip J Stoddard - 4 months, 1 week, 4 days, 12 hours, 19 minutes ago

Hey Gary, the ABA guys were out buying drinks for the panel that wrote that disaster. Or maybe they bought the drinks while the panel was writing it. This is the most violent attack on free speech since the alien and sedition acts.

My God, does the idea of “Rule of Law” mean anything in this country?
Posted by D. Couture - 4 months, 1 week, 4 days, 10 hours, 25 minutes ago

Did I just read some judicious comment above relative to lack of subscribing to the Rule of Law? “When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it.”—(See 16 Ma. Jur. 2d 177, 178) State v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147, 65 NW 262, 30 L.R.A. 630 Am. St. 459. Constitutional Torts of felonious magnitude are what we are up against, folks, and the canadian judiciairy, which jurisdiction I research, is also no exception to the “rule”. So where to go from here? Become a Rule of Law Expert… the EQUITAS Way! www.eqrolc.ca—Enjoy !

Keep Up The Good Work F. Lawrence !
Posted by Philip J Stoddard - 4 months, 1 week, 3 days, 8 hours, 25 minutes ago

Geez. I can’t stand the “C word” but it looks like some kind of ##$%*&% thing to me. I think there’s a section in Title 18 that makes it a crime. But wait a minute: these perps are above the law.

Anyway, I second D. Couture’s emotion. Keep ‘em pumpin’ Frank! There’s so much bad precedent out there now on bar admissions that another fiasco can’t make it worse.

At least you’re smoking them out of their nasty little holes.
Posted by A Yung - 4 months, 1 week, 3 days, 16 minutes ago

This guy should NOT be in the bar. I say keep him out. He is a dillweed, and we already have enough jerks in the bar. No one is saying he can’t go to law school, just that he can’t be in the bar. The bar is a priviledge, not a right, so I don’t know what all these other a-wipes are crying about. I vote to keep this jerk OUT of my bar association.
Posted by associate - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 22 hours, 22 minutes ago

From a practical standpoint:

Really, how hard is it to just jump through hoops for a few months while ending law school and studying for the bar? If you can’t do that then I must say you’re probably ill prepared for the marathon hoop jumping required of you in the actual legal profession.

Professors do it all the time. They just agree with crazy academic stuff like a good little boy until they get tenure and are allowed to actually deviate from the crazy stuff a little (not a lot, or you’l stilll be ousted).

Sometimes, you do just have to go a long a bit to get what you want. You don’t have to sacrifice your personal values, but you can choose to be less expressive while it has the potential to cost you your future.
Posted by ug - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 20 hours, 47 minutes ago

This applicant was and is a nut who should saty on the sidelines hurling epithets. The last thing our profession needs is a guy who has no respect for the very judicial system he would apparently wish to become an officer for. Good call.
Posted by Tom - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 18 hours, 15 minutes ago

In 40 years at the bar I’ve met enough nuts with law licenses to not worry about one more. In fact, many were on the bench.
Posted by bpclark - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 18 hours, 14 minutes ago

"For at least a quarter-century, this Court has made clear that even though a person has no ‘right’ to a valuable governmental benefit and even though the government may deny him the benefit for any number of reasons, there are some reasons upon which the government may not rely. It may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests-especially, his interest in freedom of speech. For if the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutionally protected speech or associations, his exercise of those freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited. This would allow the government to ‘produce a result which (it) could not command directly.’ Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 526, 78 S.Ct. 1332, 1342, 2 L.Ed.2d 1460. Such interference with constitutional rights is impermissible.”

Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 2697 (1972).
Posted by Andy the Lawyer - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 18 hours, 14 minutes ago

There are too many lawyers in the USA. There probably are too many lawyers in Michigan. This grumpy adolescent’s absence from the rolls of that state bar will not be missed.
Posted by Jesse Hoffman - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 18 hours, 6 minutes ago

Was the kid really a “dillweed” or a “nut” who was “hurling epithets”? The artice said he was asked for an oppinion and he simplly answered the question. It sounds like the kid was excluded for his oppinions which were offered only because they were sollicited. Even if he had posted highway billboards and hosted an anti-court-system blog, this decision would be a good first amendment case. But at least then I would understand the review boards consternation.

But this doesn’t sound like a nut ranting on about our court system. It sounds like a “kid” who was asked for his oppinion on the state of our court system by an authoritative board, and he felt compelled to answer truthfully and civily. I think our current president and most of his staff are absolutely out of their mind and have broken this country in half. Does that mean I should be denied citizenship? We are allowed to disagree with a system, and still participate in it. Otherwise our systems would never have a mechanism for improvement. Who knows, maybe the kid is right. It wouldn’t be the first time a local court system was packed with political cronees.
Posted by Stan the Legal Man - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 17 hours, 59 minutes ago

Do they still offer Dale Carnage classes?
Posted by Ed Brewer - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 17 hours, 1 minute ago

Commenting on the MI bar’s approach to this--gee, I don’t want to jeopardize my ability to get licensed in MI., But I do hope the recent graduate is pursuing his state-law remedies, since that could be the only way he gets to the Supreme Court, for whatever good that may prove to do him.
Posted by Rick - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 17 hours, 1 minute ago

"… in particular Justice John Paul Stevens, who is the true guardian of our constitutional rights”

Huh?
Posted by Another Attorney - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 16 hours, 58 minutes ago

I have no sympathy for this blowhard. Becoming an officer of the court is not an inalienable right, but rather a privilege that the court system has every right to constrain as it sees fit. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes correctly observed when rejecting a similar claim by a fired police officer, he “may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman.” Unfortunately, a good deal of Supreme Court jurisprudence since then has muddied the waters and injected a rights analysis into a privileges setting.
Posted by Actually read the constitution - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 16 hours, 35 minutes ago

Thank you all for giving me my laugh for the day. He would probably end up as another ambulance chaser under the guise of a “civil rights lawyer.” Good riddance - even though it WILL get reversed because of that whole First Amendment thing.
Posted by Seattle Attorney - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 16 hours, 28 minutes ago

Regardless of what you think of the applicant or his opinions, it is a violation of first amendment rights to deny his license because he was asked his opinion and gave it, whether favorable to the court or not.
I think back to one of my own law school exams where I described a portion of the law as a “multiple personality case” and wonder if the MI bar would deny my license for that less than favorable opinion.

And really just because you might think he’s a jerk, there are tons of other lawyers who are jerks and they all got their licenses. Just because you might not want to deal with them doesn’t mean they aren’t entitled to the fruits of their labors.
Posted by Brook - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 16 hours, 25 minutes ago

Question: Why were you in front of the character and fitness board to begin with?
Posted by mpt - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 16 hours, 25 minutes ago

Um, why don’t you start with a petition for rehearing en banc before you post your SCOTUS brief here. John Paul Stevens is on vacay anyway. I know because I’m his law clerk. and I’m recommending that the panel be affirmed based on your patheric comparison to Exxon Mobile, which btw won’t help you if you haven’t bothered to exhaust your administrative remedies in the first place as you have just admitted to doing here.
Posted by Jeff Schwartz - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 16 hours, 23 minutes ago

"As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes correctly observed when rejecting a similar claim by a fired police officer, he ‘may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman.’” Isn’t this the same jerkoff who said that “three generations of imbeciles is enough”? Oliver Wendell Holmes was to Supreme Court jurisprudence what Bob Uecker was to baseball--he made it to the majors, but he was a laughingstock from then on.

The U.S. Constitution does NOT NOT NOT grant any rights. There are those rights that are explicitly protected by it, and there are the remaining and far larger body of rights protected by the Ninth Amendment. Sure Lawrence is a blowhard, but he absolutely does not have to find a provision in the Constitution that gives him permission to speak. Rather, the government has to find the provision in the Constitution that permits it, an otherwise powerless and impotent body, to deny the benefit of licensure. It cannot find such a provision and is obligated to license Lawrence, the semantics of right or privelege notwithstanding. I shudder at the likelihood that everyone responding to this story is a lawyer and only about half of you apparently learned anything in your Con 1 and Con 2 classes.
Posted by jon - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 16 hours, 6 minutes ago

I’m not excited by the guy’s comments about the court system or their apparent lack of discretion. But what bothers me more than anything is that people are so willing to say “I jumped through hoops, so so should you,” even if we think those are bogus.

It’s also interesting to see how many purported lawyers commenting on this have a layman’s view of the Constitution.
Posted by Guillaume - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 15 hours, 54 minutes ago

Character and fitness are indeed threshold requirements for a law license. We don’t want someone who has, say, a proven track record of fraudulent activities out there representing people as lawyers. There is a public trust delegated to the bar examiners which they should exercise. But there is a huge difference between a proven track record of fraudulent activities and a statement of opinion to the C&F committee. A smart move to make that statement? No. Some people ask for trouble. But the C&F committee has no basis to prospectively deny a license based on a statement of opinion. Does making this statement cast aspersions on the good judgment of the applicant? Sure. It raises doubts as to whether he can successfully represent a client, and might trip over himself and make unfortunate representations that lose the client’s case. That kind of analysis of fault has to be made by courts and juries evaluating legal malpractice claims, and possibly disbarment proceedings, not prospectively by the C&F committee.
Posted by Wm. Powell - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 15 hours, 31 minutes ago

While part of me doesn’t feel right with this kid being denied the right to try and obtain his license to practice law, I have to agree with the Court’s holding. He has already stated he thinks the court system he will be practicing in is basically a fraud. I sure wouldn’t want a judge to express such views before they took the oath or office, or a general expressing the belief that the President doesn’t know enough and should not be respected or a teacher being hired who voices disdain for the educational system they hope to be employed by. The Bar in Michigan has protected possible clients of this kid, and has attempted to protect the integrity of their bar.
Posted by What's Next - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 15 hours, 28 minutes ago

I’m not familiar with the Michigan justice system so I don’t know whether the opinion is justified or not. However, the point is, he was asked his opinion. He honestly gave it. Now, the oligarchy that we are becoming has decided that because he is critical of the courts, he is denied his ability to pursue his career. Is this America or Iran?

When the courts can effectively stop all criticism of their system, we are approaching very dangerous waters for the republic.
Posted by James Denton - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 15 hours, 18 minutes ago

Constitutional law,,,Seems like the real question is why has this guy spent substantial money and time trying to qualify for membership in an organization he apparently abhors? Irrational sense of self work, desperate search for a modern day Holy Grail quest or just plain lack of commen sense? Either way seems like C & F called it correctly. Rational thought is a valid metric for selecting new attorneys and probably a valid criterion for reassessing older ones...ah if it were only so.
Posted by Jeremy D Sussman - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 15 hours, 9 minutes ago

I am impressed by comments #9 and #25, even though they come to opposite conclusions. I know of a situation where the NY C#F people asked a friend of mine to list every job he ever held, and then asked each former employer why the candidate had left the job. My friend included a newspaper route he’d worked as a kid. The employer, who hardlly remembered him, said he lost interest in the job. This response prolonged the sanctimonious proceedings.
Posted by Thomas Cochrane - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 14 hours, 40 minutes ago

I was struck by this comment by the character and fitness committee:

“We are concerned about providing a law license to someone who, even before he has handled his first case as a member of the bar, has effectively written off such a huge component of the justice system”

Does this mean that were I to say the same thing about the Michigan court system it would be acceptable because I have been practicing and in good standing with the Michigan Bar for 12 years?

What about my father, who has been practicing in Michigan for 43 years? (Not sure but I think I may have heard him say something along these lines after his third Manhattan.)
Posted by Jake - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 14 hours, 34 minutes ago

+1 for Jeff Schwartz.

-1 for mpt. mpt, if you really are a clerk for J. Stevens (which, based upon your apparent grasp of grammar/punctuation, I highly doubt), then your post amounts to the most unethical, prejudicial and irresponsible ABAJournal.com comment that I’ve ever seen. Mr. Lawrence would be well advised to direct the Clerk of the Court to this post when he files his petition for cert, on the off chance that you are who you claim to be.
Posted by EKS - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 14 hours, 22 minutes ago

I think Jeff Schwartz just became my hero.
Posted by Anonymous - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 14 hours, 3 minutes ago

Brook, some states require a C&F interview before you can be admitted. NY does, for instance but they never asked about every single job I held, only those in the legal arena. I can empathize with Mr. Lawrence but I do think the Michigan C&F committee has a point. I’m interested to see how this turns out.
Posted by Christopher Miller, Esq. - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 14 hours, 1 minute ago

What a tool. in my opinion, as an attorney you should have respect for the legal system you want to work in, even if you see problems that you think should be addressed.

This guy seems like an immature jerk who thinks he knows everything. Do we really need another lawyer like that?
Posted by Phil Stoddard - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 13 hours, 54 minutes ago

"Officer of the court” is no title of nobility: bailiffs and court reporters have as much claim to the title. Judges in this country do not legitimately exercise royal power.

I’m puzzled and concerned by comment no. 22 submitted by “mtp” who purports to clerk for John Paul Stevens. How did this guy get to be on law review?

Mr. Lawrence brought his case under 42 USC 1983. Exhaustion of administrative and/or judicial remedies is not required. Patsy vs. Board of Regents. I see that Perry vs. Sinderman has popped up in this blog. Seems like pretty powerful stuff in that case. How about Cummings vs. Missouri and Ex Parte Garland?

Mr. Lawrence properly cited Exxon-Mobil: I know because I read that case. The Sixth Circuit decision rests squarely on the arguably flawed premise that the Michigan Board of Law Examiners is a judicial court. That body is a creature of the Michigan legislature. It is an executive agency operating within limited bounds of discretion. According to the Constitution of the United States, the authority to deny a person a law license for insulting authority is not found within the bounds of that discretion. “Mtp” might also consider whether the bill of attainder clause permits such debarments from professional practice.

Anyone who thinks the Sixth Circuit’s awful attack on the First Amendment was justified should consider history. The First Amendment is the hallmark of freedom. It states a principle for which our forbears marched into battle and died. Mr. mtp seriously needs to rethink his view. I don’t think Justice Stevens would go along with the idea that a person surrenders his free speech rights when he applies for admission to the bar.

I may not agree with Lawrence and he may well be a loudmouth dillweed. However, when it comes to his right to be a loudmouth dillweed, I’ll take a bullet for him.
Posted by Jennifer L. Johnson - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 13 hours, 44 minutes ago

Shouldn’t applicants be encouraged to tell the truth when obtaining a license?

This is ridiculous of the 6th Circuit. Now I’m nervous about anything I will say in my interview. What if I say I don’t like the President...oops they’ll just have to kick me out! Darn!
Posted by disagreeable - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 13 hours, 28 minutes ago

If a practicing attorney espouses a disdain for the MI state court system, do they take his/her license away?!
Posted by Candor - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 13 hours, 16 minutes ago

I thought the C&F Committee held candor and honesty as the highest factor when determining an applicants chacter and fitness to practice law. Most clients would rather have an honest lawyer that shot them straight, even with the bad news, than a lawyer who lied just to make ther client feel better.
Posted by colette - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 13 hours, 16 minutes ago

Since when was one’s opinion a prerequisite to get a law license? Sounds a little fascist to me.
Posted by Nicole - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 12 hours, 52 minutes ago

Jeff Schwartz, I love you.
Posted by the wanger - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 11 hours, 27 minutes ago

I haven’t followed this matter or read any of the opinons, but it seems the difference between this matter and the Fieger matter is that this case involves the issuance of a licence or ability to practice an occupation, which, from my con law one distorted memory, is likely a rational basis review. Where as Feiger was just going around saying things about judges, freedom of speech, strict scrutiny. There is no constituional right to practice law. The legislature empowers the board to adminster the standards set. It would seem to me as long as the board was arguably within those standards with its concerns then this young man will not be successful in this effort. I also am unclear what exactly he wrote or said to bring him to the attention to the board to require an in-person review. Michigan does not have a first step in-person interview with the board. Your materials have to contain something that raises suspicion first, then they will escalate from there.
Posted by anonymous - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 10 hours, 28 minutes ago

In my opinion, this kid paid the price for saying what most of us think. It is rather tragic that the actions of a select few at the turn of the 20th century took what something that was a job more analogous to an plumber and made it into a new priesthood.
Posted by relawdiculous - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 9 hours, 9 minutes ago

I agree with comments #34 & #35 regarding mpt. I would be extremely disturbed to think that a highly regarded member of our Supreme Court would be assisted by someone who has made such asinine comments on an Internet posting. By the way, I think is the most coherent and intelligent Internet posting I have seen on this website - hoorah to these attorneys!
Posted by don't sink the ship - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 9 hours, 4 minutes ago

anyone who complains about Mr. Lawrence is a wimp. We all feel what he does. thank god some still have a spine. i’d rather have him as president than another arrogant attorney. our constitutional rights have been deteriorating so quickly that the Constitution is better used as toilet paper. ABA WHERE IS YOUR SUPPORT!!! your issue is titled “rant by grad costs law license”., should be “ABA does nothing but contribute to arrogance”.
Posted by None Please - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 8 hours, 23 minutes ago

I wish they did not deny him a license.

Something about crushing the little guy to it....
Posted by Scared future applicant - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 5 hours, 54 minutes ago

As (maybe) a future attorney, I am concerned by this situation and many of the comments posted. The character and fitness process should not be about getting even with applicants that disagree or dislike the way a court system operates. Furthermore, Mr. Lawrence had a duty to be truthful about the questions asked of him in the review process. It is very unfortunate that the character and fitness board has been allowed to treat him that way for his honesty. I’m concerned about using even my first name in this post because I may be retaliated against. Maybe I’m nieve, but I expected better from our JUSTICE system. And since when did a person become a nut for disagreeing with the system? Is this AMERICA?
Posted by Don't Sink the Ship - 4 months, 1 week, 1 day, 22 hours, 30 minutes ago

i was response #44, your response #46 is true. we are scared, that is also the reason i along with many don’t even post our first names. can’t we form an alliance and prevent this from continuing to frank and others that will follow in his situation from all state C & F committees. i’ve taken bars in 3 states. all complain about the manner they were treated by the C & F Committees. At their sole discretion, they can deny you admission after a 10 minute interview based on nothing other than a whim. i’ve studied the process for a considerable amount of time. what was intended as a benefit, has become a means to build egos.

i don’t know frank, but have spoken with him. he appears to be a nice person. it’s easy to form the quick opinion that this guy is trouble, yet he was doing nothing more than what the C&F does without the ability to do anything other than express his opinion. PLEASE CONTACT FRANK at statebarwatch.com and see what you can do to help. it certainly is easier to do nothing. however,we’ve all spent seven years in college and over $100,000. to have your dreams quashed because your opinion is contrary to a committees is not an idea our country was founded.
Posted by Mike - 4 months, 1 week, 1 day, 21 hours, 48 minutes ago

As with most articles, we don’t have all of the facts so to make such knee jerk reactions to both the C&F committee and Lawrence may be beneath us as attorneys. As with most cases, there is likely so much more that has not been said and that we do not know.
Posted by Read the opinion - 4 months, 1 week, 1 day, 21 hours, 34 minutes ago

Did anyone at the ABA Journal News read the opinion before running the article?

The comments have been interesting, but he wasn’t denied a license because he criticized Michigan’s court system. That’s only his claim which the Sixth Circuit accepted as true for purposes of deciding ripeness. The district court pleadings and briefs are online. The C&F committee mentioned its concern about this guy’s “disdain about the court system” but expressly said it didn’t play any part in its recommendation. The committee’s report talked about his criminal conviction, financial irresponsibility, employment terminations and other issues. The Board of Law Examiners denied the application because he contacted the employers of the committee members and tried to cause them problems because he didn’t like their recommendation. The Board said that personal attacks and trying to cause financial harm for the committee members isn’t the right way to fight an adverse decision. Seems reasonable to me…

As lawyers (and prospective lawyers), we should probably try to get the facts before assuming that this guy’s claims are anything more than just that. It sure seems that if the committee was out to crush him for dissent, they wouldn’t put it in the opinion. Conspiracies to subvert the constitution aren’t usually carried out in the open.
Posted by Jesse - 4 months, 1 week, 1 day, 18 hours ago

Good Grief! The ABA reporter really dropped the ball on this one. He seems to have made an entire story out of the one minute detail in a drama that has been playing out over the past 7 years. I don’t fault the people responding to that article for not researching the case before they responded. Nobody here is Lawrence’s lawyer, and they all took the ABA’s report at face value. This reporter probably needs to be instructed in how to properly research an article before he posts it though. The article makes this sound like a cut and dry First Amendment dispute. It’s far from it.

I urge anyone who wants to see the whole story to take 2 minutes to read the “background” portion of the pdf linked in this article. But even that only barely mentions the longer story of how this all started. The earlier and more interesting facts can be read in an article that begins on page 39 (about half way down) of the pdf at http://www.ncbex.org/uploads/user_docrepos/750306_litigation_05.pdf.
Posted by Another Attorney - 4 months, 1 week, 1 day, 17 hours, 18 minutes ago

@23

Your retort makes no sense. It is the FEDERAL government that must search for explicit authority in the Constitution to take action. Here, we’re dealing with the authority of a STATE to control who the officers of its own courts may be, and according to the Tenth Amendment, States may do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution or reserved to the federal government.

We therefore must presume that Michigan may do what it did, and Oliver Wendell Holmes was correct in observing that the First Amendment does not defeat that presumption when it comes to a State’s denial of public employment/licensure, which are mere privileges.
Posted by Ockham - 4 months, 1 week, 1 day, 16 hours, 29 minutes ago

What is the problem here? They didn’t deny Lawrence a license because of what he said. He can say whatever he wants (speech). They denied Lawrence a license because of what he subjectively believes (character and fitness). Lawrence subjectively believes that the MI system is corrupt, essentially. The Michigan bar examiners are well within their rights in thinking that a person who believes the system is corrupt will not function well as a part of that system, whether that system is actually flawed or not. They are well within their rights to think that admission of a person who thinks the system is corrupt would cause problems for that person’s clients and/or other participants in the system.

Bottom line is that Lawrence got denied because of his character and fitness, and what that character and fitness said about Lawrence’s ability to function within the system. Not his speech. There is a distinction.

Lawrence’s speech has stronger constitutional protections than his character and fitness to practice, and that’s why it’s getting all the ink here. But it’s a fallacy to argue this issue on the basis of speech alone, without addressing the underlying reasons (character and fitness) for that speech. That is what forms the basis of the examiners’ decision, and is being overlooked.
Posted by Phil Stoddard - 4 months, 1 week, 1 day, 15 hours, 22 minutes ago

Lawrence not only blew the whistle on three members of the character and fitness committee that trashed his rights by quizzing him on his beliefs, he acturally picketted outside a bar examiners office.

Folks, I hate to burst the bubble of anyone who would prohibit a true and faithful defender of the law of the land from membership in a profession sworn to uphold that law: EVERYTHING LAWRENCE DID WAS CORE PROTECTED POLITICAL SPEECH ON A MATTER OF GREAT PUBLIC INTEREST!!

Please pardon my SHOUTING! Fair bar admission standards and procedures are a MATTER OF GREAT PUBLIC INTEREST! Oops, there I go again. I suspect that what Lawrence did was exercise his rights in a way that was sure to draw exactly what he got: self-righteous and hypocritical indignation and retaliation.

Is Lawrence litigious? You bet he is. He came looking for a fight and he got one. Maybe the Michigan Court system is out of whack. What it did to Frank Lawrence seems to suggest that it’s time to take a careful look at lawyer admission.

If Lawrence wins we all win. I’m sure of it.
Posted by Irwin Eisenstein 4L - 4 months, 1 week, 1 day, 13 hours, 46 minutes ago

Frank Lawrence, Jr. is absolutely correct in that the Supreme Court has limited the use of Rooker Feldman with Exxon. After Exxon, they decided another case where they reiterated Exxon. Evidently, the Supremes thought that the lower courts were using Rooker Feldman inappropriately.
It seems like this is another example of a circuit court ignoring a higher authority (treason?)

P.S. I may be in a similar situation when I apply to the bar in several states. I have been sanctioned by a federal judge who received ex parte communications and never notified the parties. Additionally, I have been locked up for waking a sleeping baby in court. (Thomas Zampino - a sitting judge in Essex County, New Jersey was responsible for that order! He placed a $2500 cash bond on that contempt order (that is 25,000) but later let me out on my own recognizance.
It is time for the other branches of government to recognize that the judiciary cannot police their own. I know that there are non-lawyers on most ethics panels, but there should be a majority on many panels reviewing both lawyers and judges.
I see no reason why someone should lower their standards to become a member of the bar or judiciary.
Posted by sb - 4 months, 1 week, 1 day, 12 hours, 13 minutes ago

Thank you, Mr./Ms. Ockham, for your island of civility and truth in this sea of reactionism and conclusion-jumping. Ladies and Gentlemen, I have a constitutional right to say and believe anything I want. However, the state bar admissions committee has a duty to the people of my fair state to prevent me from becoming an attorney if it has a reason to believe that my speech and beliefs are going to weaken the effectiveness of and public respect for the judicial system. People, this isn’t about speech, it’s about fitness to practice. Get off your high horses already.
Posted by Gentleman Jack - 4 months, 1 week, 1 day, 11 hours, 1 minute ago

Im a little rusty but I do believe there is a right to practice ones profession (slaughterhouse cases, 10th Am.) for those that keep saying being an attorney is a privilege not a right. Very intriguing case nonetheless Im pulling for Lawrence. Attorneys are supposed to have a little “upstart” in them they are not supposed to be blind mindless servants.
Posted by Phil Stoddard - 4 months, 1 week, 1 day, 9 hours, 10 minutes ago

That’s right. The public expects a strong streak of contentiousness in their lawyers. Civility and courtesy, of course. What’s missing in the Lawrence case history is any indication that he was ever rude to a judge. He complained about their shenanigans and sued over them.

After all, aren’t lawsuits the way we avoid duelling in the streets? Isn’t an effective civil justice system the greatest protection we have against armed revolution? Do we have an effective civil justice system in this Country? Frank Lawrence apparently doesn’t think so. Considering the recent 6th Circuit opinion trashing the First Amendment, I don’t think so either.

With regard to post 49, Lawrence’s “criminal conviction” was a municipal ordinance violation of a facially unconstitutional statute that is currently being challenged in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Bloomfield Township has paid out well over six figures in outside counsel fees defending against Lawrence’s attack.

I guarantee you that even if Bloomfield Township wins, the next cop that pulls that kind of crap will get his butt fired.

Hey, how about the black law students who got busted for “walking while black?” Is that the kind of “crminal conduct” that ought to be disqualifying for bar admission?

Seems to me that the country is in worse shape freedom wise than it was back in 1775. Maybe it really is time to grab our muskets and pitchforks and head for the courthouse. Just joking of course.

And yes, the right-privilege distinction went up in smoke in the 70’s with several driver license cases - Bell vs. Burson and Mackey vs. Montrim were two of them. The question is not whether it is a right of a privilege: it’s whether the plaintiff has an interest the constitution will protect.

The right to practice a profession of one’s choosing is a protected liberty interest. Meyer vs. Nebraska. “The practice of law” is not a matter of the State’s grace.” Ex Parte Garland.

Wake up folks! If the Michigan Board of Law Examiners has unfettered discretion for screwing Frank Lawrence, nobody is safe.
Posted by Read the opinion - 4 months, 1 week, 15 hours, 47 minutes ago

Interesting that the article gets revised as Lawrence sends in more information. I thought this was the ABA Journal and not Wikipedia. Fits with my initial reaction to the article which was wrong about the opinion and the facts.

Jesse (#50) - Thanks for the link to the article about this guy’s first loss in the Sixth Circuit. The post that minimizes Lawrence’s criminal conviction as a “municipal ordinance violation” overlooks that it was a misdemeanor charge for interfering with a police officer. And the conviction was after a trial by jury - who presumably weren’t part of the scheme to punish Lawrence. According to the Sixth Circuit’s docket, the court recently threw out both of Lawrence’s appeals about his conviction.

I guess that the facts get in the way of the rhetoric so we should just forget about them.
Posted by Phil Stoddard - 4 months, 1 week, 12 hours, 15 minutes ago

OK, I’ve got a question for all of the “inquiring minds who want to know.” Why did John Berry resign his position as Head of the SBM and take a lowly staff specialist job in Florida? Does anyone really believe that Berry’s resignation didn’t have anything to do with the volume of litigation his policies were drawing.

I went through Lawrence’s website with a fine tooth comb. There’s a lot of rhetoric there, sure. There’s also material that suggests that there is a strong political undercurrent in the opposition to Frank Lawrence’s bar candidacy.

Politically motivated bar admissions decisions are illegal in this country and all the legal realists and activist judges won’t change that simple fact.

Finally, with regard to the claim that I minimized Lawrence’s “criminal conviction”: I never claimed Lawrence wasn’t guilty as charged. I have read the ordinance: in my opinion, the ordinance is overbroad and the Bloomfield Hills policy implementing the ordinance violates the Fourth Amendment. I also believe Lawrence’s challenge to the ordinance is doomed. But then, it’s painfully apparent that “The System” has a special set of laws where Frank Lawrence or any other upstart is concerned.
Posted by L - 4 months, 6 days, 21 hours, 40 minutes ago

What law school did this guy go to?
Posted by Dorothy - 4 months, 6 days, 20 hours, 27 minutes ago

Yes, it would be easier to roll over, but the monopoly that is the bar association has to be taken on by someone. I applaud Lawrence, and hope he gets his license.
Posted by Tony - 4 months, 6 days, 17 hours, 10 minutes ago

He should have waited until after he tried his first case to develop and express disdain for the judges and the arcane and oppressive adherence to form over substance without regard for justice in the courts, like the rest of us!
Posted by Marsha - 4 months, 6 days, 16 hours, 53 minutes ago

If you want to see how far a qualfied attorney’s civil rights can be violated, google George Anastaplo (who is currently on the faculty of Loyola University of Chicago Law School). His license was denied for 30 years because he refused to answer the question, “Have hou ever been a member of the Communist Party?” He had not been. But his license was denied simply becasue he refused to answer.
Posted by Paschal Ukpabi - 4 months, 6 days, 16 hours, 11 minutes ago

I wonder why Lawrence would want to be a member of a profession he has so much disdain for? Our system of justice is not perfect because it is run by human beings. However, most hurdles in life are overcome if we apply the commonsense approuch to matters. It appears Mr. Lawrence lacks commonsense, otherwise how else can one explain his answer concerning character and fitness.

However, I still think the State Bar’s action amounts to killing a fly with a sledge hammer.
Posted by mpt - 4 months, 6 days, 15 hours ago

TO COMMENT #31 AND JAKE:

Well, Jake, my astute friend and not so equal colleague, guess who reads the petitions for cert and recommends which cases will be taken?? Not only will I fish for his petition in the cert pool and yank it like it’s got three eyes, I will draft a full memorandum as to why the petition should be denied. And do you really think anyone around here (other than me who’s boss is on vacation) has time to read a messge board, let alone the near-imbecilic suggestion that it should somehow pass evidentiary muster for such a hearing should one ever be even remotely conceivable? You’re a footnote in my a**hole is what I’m trying to tell you, JAKE.
Posted by Freddy Johnson - 4 months, 6 days, 13 hours, 31 minutes ago

Who cares if this guy was denied a license? It’s not like the C& F committee goes out of their way to deny law grads their law license. There is probably a lot to the story that we don’t know. This guy probably got what he deserved.
Posted by JPT - 4 months, 6 days, 11 hours, 28 minutes ago

Advice for the MI justice system: Police your lawyers and judges like you do your law students!
Posted by Jeffrey A. Schwartz - 4 months, 5 days, 20 hours, 44 minutes ago

To #51-Wrong. Granted I did not read the full decision, only the story above. But:

1. My first comment was directed at Justice Holmes’ preposterous statement that there is “no constitutional right to be a policeman”. There is no constitutional right to be a cop, a grocer, a baseball player, or a supreme court justice. And nothing could matter less because you have the right to aspire to be all of those, although in some cases you may not be qualified. Nevertheless, it’s not a Constitutional right, just the plenary right. You were born free in a free country, so you get to do it.

2. The committee said: “We are concerned about providing a law license to someone who, even before he has handled his first case as a member of the bar, has effectively written off such a huge component of the justice system.” Therefore, the committee based its decision (and again, I didn’t read the whole opinion) on *what* *Lawrence* *said*, and that IS a direct violation of a right recognized and protected by the First Amendment, applicable to the States as well as the Feds, since every citizen of a state is also a citizen of the United States. The 14th Amendment actually makes your case worse, since it prohibits a state from making or enforcing any law that abridges the privileges or immunities available to citizens of the U.S. (As opposed to “rights” and immunities.)
Posted by djb - 4 months, 5 days, 9 hours, 34 minutes ago

help a poor 1L out here. The first amendment protects his legal right to say whatever he wants. How, exactly, has that right been infringed upon?

The way I see it, no one told him he couldn’t say whatever he said. He wasn’t thrown in jail, fined, etc., for saying it. Is not passing the bar considered “governmental punishment”? If that’s the issue, then a) I’m surprised there’s not more C&F type lawsuits, and b) frankly, I’m surprised there’s this much debate on the issue.
Posted by Mike in O-Town - 4 months, 4 days, 21 hours, 42 minutes ago

Hey, mpt: It’s “Exxon Mobil” not “Exxon Mobile.” If you’re Stevens’ clerk I’m a monkey’s arse. I have too much respect for Justice Stevens to think for a second that he would hire a douche like you. Now get back to studying for that Admin. Law exam at SW Missouri Technical School of Law.
Posted by Angry Liberal from MI - 4 months, 3 days, 18 hours, 43 minutes ago

Most lawyers in Michigan hold the Michigan courts in disregard. Hell look at the infighting between members of the MI Supreme Court, they hold each other in disregard.

Bad call from the MI State Bar. We need more critics of the system with law degrees. If he misuses the licence, then take it away. But criticism of a poorly functioning system is no reason to withhold a license. The First Amendment is first for a reason.
Posted by Kenneth A. McCready - 4 months, 3 days, 13 hours, 11 minutes ago

From a fellow victim: God Bless you and keep you in your good fight, Frank. Carry it to the Supremes. I think the comments on this board are illustrative of how flawed (and yet how good) the ‘system’ is. Some of you can’t spell. Some of you can’t express a cogent thought. Some of you call this 35-year old man a ‘kid’. Some of you obviously have no respect for the system of which you’re an integral part. If ‘mpt’ is truly a clerk for Justice Stevens, then that is the worst threatened abuse of power I’ve seen (except Saddam’s “rape rooms” of course).

The opinion speaks for itself--they dinged him because of what he said and what he believes. I see nothing that reflects adversely on his character or his fitness to practice law. He’d be one of the good ones.

And, ain’t it ironic that today, as I write this, the supreme court has decided that foreign terrorists/illegal combatants have the right of access to our civil courts. Too bad ol’ Frank doesn’t. Rooker-Feldman, lack S.M.J. Damn shame.

In the fifteen years since I was similarly denied licensure, I have yet to meet another honest or ethical attorney. That speaks volumes.
Posted by Robert Bennett - 4 months, 3 days, 1 hour, 49 minutes ago

Michigan’s Bar was wise in keeping Mr. Lawrence on the lay side of the bar. The reason is that an officer of the court who undermines its administration of legal business also undermines its capacity to work justice.

I agree with Mr. Lawrence that courts are often lousy, which is why commercial clients are well advised to resort to arbitration and mediation to resolve their disputes. But when I represent a client before a court of record, I must do so both as his advocate and as an officer of the court. Therefore, if the court has problems, then it is my duty to identify and work through those problems on behalf of both my client and the court.

Many of the comments above expose a slew of lawyers whose political neuroses have led to total amnesia with respect to their civic duties. Kudos to the Michigan Bar for taking measures to remedy both ailments.
Posted by Phil Stoddard - 4 months, 2 days, 9 hours, 2 minutes ago

To the confused 1L of post #69. Exclusion from a regulated profession on character and fitness grounds has been traditionally regarded as “punishment” in England and in the United States. When “bills of attainder” were lawful, the usual suspects were political enemies or traitors: punishment was usually death and forfeiture of one’s estate to the crown.

Whlile the Michigan admission authorities did not take Lawrence’s life, they took his liveliehood: economic capital punishment. For those misguided souls who have posted in this blog and who seem to think this is a trivial matter, you seriously need to rethink your commitment to uphold the Constitution: particularly Art. I, Sec. 10.
Posted by mpt - 4 months, 1 day, 21 hours, 19 minutes ago

I can’t believe some of you douchebags actually thought I was Steven’s clerk. You need to get out of the office and meet some women.

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Constitutional Law