In re Application of David H.

Order of Court. Smith and Rodowsky, JJ., dissent. Smith, J., filed a dissenting opinion at page 547 infra and Rodowsky, J., filed a dissenting opinion at page 549 infra. ORDER Upon consideration of the favorable recommendation of the State Board of Law Examiners for admission to the Bar of Maryland of DAVID H., it is this 27th day of October, 1982 ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, a majority of the Court concurring, that the recommendation of the State Board for admission of DAVID H. be, and it is hereby, adopted, subject to the condition that DAVID H. be successful on a bar examination and that at such time the required updating oath as to character be filed.

Judges Smith and Rodowsky dissent. Smith, J., dissenting: I am no more willing to admit this young man to the bar today than I was when we last denied him admission. See In Re Application of David H., 283 Md. 632 , 392 A.2d 83 (1978). In the earlier case Chief Judge Murphy said for the Court: "[T]he ... applicant’s criminal conduct, by his own admission, persisted over an extended period of time.

The thefts committed by the applicant were not... isolated criminal transactions; rather, they constituted a continuous course of criminal activity which the applicant did not see fit to terminate until after his graduation from college.” 283 Md. at 640 . Judge Murphy pointed out for the Court: "[T]he applicant’s determination to conclude his criminal activity apparently did not flow from an 'inborn’ resolve to change his moral character; rather, the change was wrought as a result of the consequences to the applicant which emanated from his prosecution for those theft offenses for which he was apprehended by the police. Had he not been caught, the applicant, according to his own account, may well have continued to steal.” Id. This led to his observation for the Court "that thievery of a repetitive nature, as here, is usually indicative of a serious character flaw.” Id.

Even the ancient world was aware of the fact that one should not steal and had laws forbidding such conduct. See 7 Encyclopedia Britannica, Decalogue 153 (1971). Judge Markell said for the Court in In Re Meyerson, 190 Md. 671, 678 , 59 A.2d 489 (1948), "As disbarment is not punishment, likewise we think due regard for the administration of justice does not permit disbarment and reinstatement to be made mere adjuncts to reform schools and the parole sys ⁵⁴⁸ tem.” Chief Judge Hammond quoted that language for the Court in Maryland St. Bar Ass’n v. Boone, 255 Md. 420, 433 , 258 A.2d 438 (1969), and it has been quoted many times since then. It is no less applicable to an original admission.

Much of what I have just said in my dissent in the