Application of T. Z.-A. O.

WATTS, J. In this case, we are asked to reconsider the denial of the application for admission to the Bar of Maryland of T.Z.-A.O. (“Movant”), 1 who: (1) has demonstrated a consistent pattern of financial irresponsibility; (2) completed and signed a car loan application which included false financial information and failed to include information about a recent bankruptcy; and (3) failed to disclose a prior arrest and conviction on his law school application. Both the Character Committee for the Fifth Appellate Circuit (“the Committee”) and the State Board of Law Examiners (“the Board”) recommended that Movant be denied admission to the Bar of Maryland. 2 For the below reasons, we agree that Movant has not demonstrated on this record that he currently possesses the requisite moral character and fitness for admission to the Bar of Maryland and deny Movant’s request for reconsideration. 3 BACKGROUND On May 21, 2012, Movant filed with the Board an application for admission to the Bar of Maryland. On June 25, 2012, the Board forwarded the application to the Committee.

Movant passed the July 2012 Maryland Bar Examination. ⁶⁸ As a result of matters uncovered during the Committee’s investigation, on June 10, 2013, a three-member panel of the Committee conducted a hearing to determine whether Movant possessed the good moral character and fitness necessary for admission to the Bar of Maryland. Movant appeared, represented by counsel, and testified. The panel also received into evidence twenty-five exhibits. On August 13, 2013, the panel issued a Report, unanimously recommending that Movant be denied admission to the Bar of Maryland.

The panel made findings of fact, which we summarize. 4 On May 22, 1996, in Columbus, Ohio, Movant was arrested for public indecency. 5 On July 12, 1996, Movant pled guilty to the offense and was sentenced to thirty days’ incarceration, with one day credited toward the sentence. 6 The remaining twenty-nine days were suspended, on the condition that Movant not be convicted of any other crime during the next two years. In 2004, Movant applied, and was accepted, to Tulane University Law School. Question 28(a) of the Tulane University Law School application asked: “[H]ave you ever been charged with, arrested for, convicted of, [or] pled guilty or nolo contendere for a violation of any law?” Despite certifying in the application that his responses were true, correct, and complete, Movant answered Question 28(a) in the negative. Movant disclosed the 1996 arrest and conviction for public indecency on his application for admission to the Bar of Florida.

Upon review of Movant’s application, the Florida ⁶⁹ Board of Bar Examiners became aware that Movant had failed to disclose the arrest and conviction for public indecency on his law school application. The Florida Board of Bar Examiners informed Movant of the discrepancy. As a result, Movant notified Tulane University Law School that he had failed to disclose the arrest and conviction for public indecency on his application for admission. 7 On May 10, 2004, a few months after applying to law school, Movant filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. At the hearing, Movant admitted that his financial activities had been irresponsible, and included the use of multiple credit cards when he had no employment or other means to pay the balances.

On August 18, 2004, Movant discharged $58,000 in debt. On August 25, 2006, Movant purchased a new Honda vehicle. According to Movant, he initially intended to purchase a used car, but sales personnel persuaded him to test-drive new vehicles and initiated the car loan application process for the purchase of a new vehicle. Movant signed the car loan application, as well as at least four additional contracts and agreements related to the purchase of the car.

The loan application did not mention Movant’s 2004 bankruptcy, and falsely stated that Movant owned a home, made no rental or mortgage payments, and earned $3,500 per month. 8 By signing the car loan application, Movant certified that all information on the car loan application was “true, correct, and complete.” Movant asserted that the sales representative “must have inserted” the false information concerning his home ownership and income into the car loan application, which allowed Movant to qualify for the car loan. Movant acknowl ⁷⁰ edged that, at the time of the car’s purchase, he was aware that the interest rate on the car loan was 14.95% and that his monthly car payment would be $674.70. Movant nevertheless took possession of the car. In Fall 2007, Movant stopped making monthly car payments.

Movant indicated he did so “because of what he considered contractual irregularities and/or alterations in the contract.” Despite developing concerns about these irregularities, Movant did not immediately return the car, but rather continued to use the car until surrendering it in February 2008. At the time that Movant surrendered the car, there was an arrearage of $19,000 outstanding on the car loan. Movant testified that he litigated against the financing company, disputing responsibility for the deficiency. Movant testified that the financing company forgave the outstanding arrearage.

As to Movant’s current financial situation, Movant is self-employed, and performs research and writing for a law firm in Florida. In 2012, Movant earned approximately $24,000, and, from January 2013 to June 2013, Movant had earned between $18,000 and $19,000. Movant admitted that he has $220,000 in private and federal student loan debt. Movant testified that he made the minimum payments on the private loans, and that the federal loans were in forbearance or deferment. 9 Based on these findings of fact, 10 the Committee reached the following conclusions: [Movant] has yet to show financial responsibility.

Since his bankruptcy, [Movant] has continued to accumulate debt for which [he] appears to have no plan to pay. Since ⁷¹ [Movantjs bankruptcy in 2004 [through] which he discharged $58,000 in debt, he has accumulated the better part of $200,000.00 in student loans and additional consumer debt with no full[-]time employment ever attempted. He has also discharged the $19,000.00 vehicle loan by way of litigation against the credit company financing the loan. [Movant] has still failed to acknowledge the significance of having a loan application processed with untruthful information about his financial situation included over his signature. [Movant] admitted that he knew that there was no way that he should have qualified for the loan necessary to purchase the vehicle. Yet he kept and drove the vehicle until he chose to stop paying toward the loan.

Even after he stopped making payments toward the loan, [Movant] continued to employ the use of the vehicle for an additional 5 to 6 months. [Movant], in spite of knowledge of irregularities with the paperwork relating to the vehicle and with knowledge that he should not have qualified for the loan necessary to purchase the vehicle, did nothing to put matters right until contacted by the Florida [Board of] Bar Examiners about the inaccurate application for credit (and when [Movant] was confronted with the $19,000.00 arrearage). The conduct of [Movant] reflects adversely on [Movant]’s personal commitment to honesty and truthfulness as well as his commitment to financial responsibility. Therefore, after considering the totality of the circumstances of [Movant]’s conduct, and the fact that [Movant] bears the burden to prove his good moral character, the review of the record and the testimony of the [Movant] leads th[e] Committee to conclude that [Movant] has failed to meet his burden at this point, and it is the recommendation of the Character Committee for the Fifth Appellate Circuit that his application for admission to the [Bar of] Maryland [ ] be denied. On December 6, 2013, the Board conducted a hearing, at which Movant appeared, represented by counsel. 11 On March ⁷² 18, 2014, the Board issued a report and concluded, by a vote of four to two, that Movant had “not met his burden of proving that he currently possesses good moral character and fitness for membership in the Bar of Maryland.” Accordingly, the Board recommended that Movant be denied admission to the Bar of Maryland.

In its report, the Board made findings, including the following. Movant admitted that he signed all documents associated with the car loan application, including a credit application certifying that everything was correct, but stated that he did not read the documents after the first “one or two[.]” In Fall 2007, Movant stopped making monthly car payments “after the credit application to purchase the [car] became an issue with the” Florida Board of Bar Examiners. The Board also found: [Movant] made a major purchase on credit two years after discharging $58,000 of consumer credit in bankruptcy. He had also established numerous consumer credit accounts when he applied for the [Bar of] Maryland [ ]. [Movant] does not understand the import and obligation of his actions or his legal commitments. [Movant] has only taken his credit obligations seriously when it was evident that they may be an obstacle to becoming admitted to the bar. [Movant] was thirty-one years of age and a college graduate when he entered law school. [Movant] was thirty-two years of age and a law student when he signed the documents contracting to purchase the [car].

He was thirty-three years of age when he applied for admission to the [Bar of] Florida [ ]. [Movant] was thirty-eight years of age when his application for admission to the [Bar of] Maryland [ ] was accepted for filing. [Movant] was an adult through all of the incidents and issues which are of concern to both the Florida and Maryland Bar Examiners, yet treats these incidents like they were youthful indiscretion. He has a history of incurring financial obligations when he lacks the ⁷³ means to fulfill them and uses any method he can to evade them. He has shown no commitment to honesty and financial responsibility. STANDARD OF REVIEW The issue before us is whether Movant has met the burden of proving that he “possessefs] the moral character to practice law in the State of Maryland.” In re Application of Cramer, 427 Md. 612, 622 , 50 A.3d 1066, 1071 (2012) (per curiam) (citations omitted).

An applicant must possess good moral character for admission to the Bar. Id. at 622 , 50 A.3d at 1071-72 . Good moral character is “denoted by those qualities of truth-speaking, of a high sense of honor, of granite discretion, [and] of the strictest observance of fiduciary responsibility.” Id. at 622 , 50 A.3d at 1072 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). We determine present moral character by evaluating whether, “viewing the applicant’s character in the period subsequent to his [or her] misconduct, [the applicant] has so convincingly rehabilitated himself [or herself] that it is proper that he [or she] become a member of a profession which must stand free from all suspicion.” In re Application of Stern, 403 Md. 615, 629 , 943 A.2d 1247, 1255 (2008) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Moreover, “good moral character includes truthfulness and candor, and absolute candor is a requisite of admission to the” Bar of Maryland. Application of Cramer, 427 Md. at 622 , 50 A.3d at 1072 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “The Board’s conclusions that an applicant does not possess the requisite moral character, and recommendation against admission to the Bar, are entitled to great weight.” Application of Stern, 403 Md. at 629 , 943 A.2d at 1255 (citations omitted). “This Court, however, is charged with the responsibility to conduct an independent evaluation of the applicant’s moral character based upon testimony and evidence submitted before the Committee and the Board.” Application of Cramer, 427 Md. at 623 , 50 A.3d at 1072 (citations omitted). ⁷⁴ DISCUSSION Movant contends that, contrary to the recommendations of the Committee and the Board, he has demonstrated the moral character and fitness necessary for admission to the Bar of Maryland. 12 As to the car loan application, Movant acknowledges that he signed the car loan application and other documents concerning the purchase of the car, but asserts that the sales representative must have included the false financial information in the application. Movant concedes that he did not “handle the matter properly” in choosing to stop making monthly car payments and failing to immediately surrender the car, but asserts that he has “learned from the experience.” Movant contends that the litigation against the car loan financing company, which resulted in the discharge of the outstanding loan debt, should not be considered evidence of “financial irresponsibility” because the litigation was not undertaken “vexatiously or in bad faithf.]” Movant maintains that he is current on all of his financial obligations and that “[t]he overwhelming majority of [his] indebtedness” is comprised of student loans. Our cases concerning admission to the Bar of Maryland have made clear that failure to honor financial obligations and lack of candor are serious matters that adversely reflect upon an applicant’s ability to practice law.

See, e.g., In re Application of Hyland, 339 Md. 521, 535 , 663 A.2d 1309, 1316 (1995) (“The conduct of an applicant in satisfying his or her financial obligations and exhibiting financial responsibility is an impor ⁷⁵ tant factor in assessing good moral character.” (Citations omitted)); In re Application of Strzempek, 407 Md. 102, 115 , 962 A.2d 988, 995 (2008) (“[A]bsolute candor is a requisite of admission to the” Bar of Maryland. (Citations and emphasis omitted)). Concerning the failure to honor financial obligations, in