Constitutional Law
Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of the State of New Mexico, 353 U.S. 232 (1957) (U.S. Supreme Court)
Study notes for Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
A denial of bar admission must be based on evidence that rationally connects to an applicant's present fitness to practice law.
In Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, the Supreme Court addressed the fundamental principle of due process in regards to the admission of attorneys to the bar. Specifically, the Court emphasized that while states have the authority to regulate the legal profession, their decisions must adhere to constitutional standards, particularly in ensuring that denials of admission are based on relevant conduct that pertains to an applicant's character and fitness for practice. The Court found that the Board's reliance on entirely remote issues like past arrests that did not result in convictions and long-ago political affiliations lacked rational justification when assessing current moral character.
This case serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of procedural and substantive due process in licensing decisions. It underscores a significant constitutional check on the arbitrary exercise of state power and highlights the need for basing regulatory actions on evidence that directly correlates with the applicant's current fitness, rather than historical or irrelevant conduct. The implications of the ruling extend to various licensing boards and their discretion, calling into question the nature of evidence and the relevance of past conduct in determining present qualifications.
GREAT - Good Character Requires Evidence of Actual conduct Today.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Pernell v. Board of Bar Examiners | In Pernell, the applicant's criminal convictions were recent and directly relevant to their character assessment, unlike Schware's remote and non-conviction based issues. |
| Washington v. Glucksberg | Washington v. Glucksberg dealt with substantive due process related to personal liberties, whereas Schware focused on procedural due process in licensing. |
| Moreno v. New Mexico | Moreno involved the denial of a license based on perceived moral shortcomings, which were directly linked to actions taken by the applicant, contrasting Schware's case of irrelevant historical associations. |
Denying bar admission based on irrelevant or outdated conduct perpetuates discrimination and undermines individuals' chances for rehabilitation, thus harming the integrity of the legal profession.
Some argue that allowing individuals with questionable backgrounds access to the legal profession could harm public trust in legal professionals and the justice system.
This case often appears in exams as a discussion of due process and the standards governing state regulation of occupations, particularly in legal admissions. Students should focus on the rationale for the Court's holding and its implications for future cases.