In the Matter of Anonymous
for Admission to the Bar
of the State of New York,
Appellant.
2002 NY Int. 19
Petitioner appeals from an Appellate Division order
denying his application for admission to the Bar. A member of
the Committee on Character and Fitness interviewed petitioner and
wrote a report recommending that a subcommittee of the full
Committee hold a hearing on the application. A subcommittee held
that hearing and, after writing a report recommending
petitioner's admission to the Bar, referred the matter to the
full Committee. The Committee then furnished the Appellate
Division with the interviewer's original report as well as its
own report and the subcommittee report. The court held the
application in abeyance and appointed an independent doctor to
examine petitioner. In her report, the doctor concluded that
In Matter of Citrin (94 2 459, 464 [2000]), this Court construed 22 NYCRR 690.16 to require the Appellate Division, before denying a disbarred attorney's reinstatement application, to provide the applicant with a copy of the Committee's report so the applicant might "correct any errors in the report or * * * address the Committee's concerns about his reinstatement." The Committee report in Citrin recommended reinstatement, but the Appellate Division rejected that recommendation. While section 690.16 required disclosure only of a report opposing reinstatement, we reasoned that withholding even a favorable report denied the applicant "the opportunity to satisfy his burden of demonstrating that he possessed the requisite character and fitness to practice law, as he was not permitted to know of or rebut any evidence to the contrary contained in the report" (id.). Accordingly, we held that the Appellate Division may not rely on such a report in denying reinstatement to the Bar, without first giving the applicant an opportunity to address any issues presented in it.
Although Citrin concerns reinstatement, its principles also apply in the case before us, which deals with admission. A Committee report may conclude with a recommendation for admission but "may be equivocal or raise other concerns about the applicant's character that the tribunal will comprehensively weigh" (Citrin, 94 NY2d, at 464-465).
As we stated in Citrin, the Appellate Division need not give its reasons for denying an applicant admission to the Bar (see, Citrin, 94 NY2d, at 465). Here, however, the Appellate Division summarily denied petitioner admission to the Bar without even providing him an opportunity to address the basis for the denial. Expressing no view on the merits of petitioner's application for admission to the Bar, we now reverse.
Balancing the Committee's need for confidentiality with petitioner's need for information under Citrin, we hold that before the Appellate Division denies an applicant admission to the Bar, the applicant should be provided with all reports, exhibits and other material of a factual nature that the court considered. Those documents may, however, be "redacted [or summarized] to remove Committee deliberations and other confidential information" (Citrin, 94 NY2d, at 465). The court should also allow the applicant an opportunity to respond before it finally rules on the application.
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should
be reversed, without costs, and the matter remitted to that court