General requirements for admission
Source:
Section 9.220 — General requirements for admission, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors009.html.
Notes of Decisions
The burden is upon the applicant to prove his good moral character. In re Alpert, 269 Or 508, 525 P2d 1042 (1974)
In showing reformation of character, petitioner satisfied his burden of proving that he is “a person of good moral character.” In re Gimbel, 271 Or 671, 533 P2d 810 (1975)
The requirement of an expression of intent to reside in Oregon does not violate the applicant’s right of interstate travel, equal protection or due process. Wilson v. Wilson, 416 F Supp 984 (1976)
Where applicant for admission was convicted of custodial interference, committed perjury during dissolution proceedings and lacked appreciation of moral and legal implications of misconduct, evidence established his lack of good moral character within meaning of this section. In the Matter of Thomas D. Easton, 289 Or 99, 610 P2d 270 (1980)
Where there was pattern of devious or untruthful testimony under oath and applicant for admission to Oregon State Bar failed to scrupulously honor all financial obligations, applicant failed to prove good moral character. In re Easton, 298 Or 365, 692 P2d 592 (1984)
Where applicant not only engaged in heinous crime in past but continued to misstate facts of crime and his involvement in it in order to gain admission to Bar, applicant did not show himself to be credible person and did not establish that he had good moral character required to practice law. In re Fine, 303 Or 314, 736 P2d 183 (1987)
Where applicant had committed criminal acts that would have resulted in five-year suspension if person had been admitted to practice of law at time acts were committed, applicant would not be permitted to apply for admission until five years from date most recent misconduct was adjudicated. In re Jaffee, 311 Or 159, 806 P2d 685 (1991)
When applicant impersonated employer on telephone to obtain credit and continued to misstate facts about prior dishonesty, bar applicant failed to establish good moral character required to practice law. In re Parker, 314 Or 143, 838 P2d 54 (1992)
Where applicant seeking reinstatement did not testify at hearing, experts suggested restrictions on applicant’s practice and trial panel expressed doubt whether applicant could be trusted in future, applicant failed to establish possession of good moral character requisite to reinstatement by clear and convincing evidence. In re Nash, 317 Or 354, 855 P2d 1112 (1993)
Bankruptcy is insufficient as sole ground for disqualifying applicant from admission to bar. In re Scallon, 327 Or 32, 956 P2d 982 (1998)
Up to date