
    In re Jacob D. YOUNG.
    No. 2012-OB-0060.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 23, 2012.
   ON APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR

PER CURIAM.

[TThe Committee on Bar Admissions (“Committee”) opposed the application of petitioner, Jacob D. Young, to sit for the Louisiana Bar Examination based on character and fitness concerns. Specifically, the Committee cited two issues: (1) petitioner’s three arrests for DWI, and (2) his failure to timely amend his bar application to disclose an alcohol-related arrest which occurred after he submitted his original application. We subsequently granted petitioner permission to sit for the bar exam, with the provision that upon his successful completion of the exam, he apply to the court for the appointment of a commissioner to take character and fitness evidence. In re: Young, 10-1741 (La.9/24/10), 45 So.3d 1062.

Petitioner thereafter successfully passed the essay portion of the bar exam, and upon his application, we remanded this matter to the Committee on Bar Admissions Panel on Character and Fitness to conduct an investigation and appointed a commissioner to take character and fitness evidence. The commissioner conducted a hearing in June 2012, at which petitioner introduced evidence demonstrating that he had enrolled in and successfully completed an intensive outpatient program for the treatment of alcohol dependence. Petitioner also introduced evidence demonstrating his compliance with the terms and conditions of his recovery agreement with the Lawyers Assistance Program (“LAP”), which he executed in March 2010.

12Following the proceedings, the commissioner filed his report with this court. The commissioner made a factual finding that petitioner carried his burden of proving his recovery from alcoholism, and he rejected the Committee’s assertion that petitioner demonstrated a lack of candor. Based on these findings, the commissioner recommended that petitioner be conditionally admitted to the practice of law, subject to the terms and conditions of a new five-year LAP agreement. Neither petitioner nor the Committee objected to that recommendation.

Considering the commissioner’s recommendation, particularly his credibility findings, and the entire record of this proceeding, we conclude petitioner is eligible to be conditionally admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana, subject to the following conditions:

1. Petitioner must execute a new five-year recovery agreement with LAP.

2. The period of this conditional admission shall coincide with the period of petitioner’s LAP agreement. However, petitioner’s conditional admission status shall not be terminated until this court so orders.

3. Petitioner shall be responsible for ensuring that monthly reports of his progress and participation in LAP are forwarded to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”).

4. Upon the expiration of the term of petitioner’s LAP agreement, the Executive Director of LAP shall forward to the ODC (a) a final report of petitioner’s progress and participation in LAP, and (b) a recommendation regarding the need for petitioner’s continued participation in LAP.

5. Following receipt of the report from LAP, the ODC shall file a report in this court in which it shall recommend whether the conditional admission shall be allowed to terminate or shall be extended.

136. Petitioner shall cooperate with LAP and the ODC, and shall comply with any and all requirements imposed upon him by LAP and the ODC.

Should petitioner fail to make a good faith effort to satisfy these conditions, or should he commit any misconduct during the period of probation, his conditional right to practice may be terminated or he may be subjected to other discipline pursuant to the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement.

CONDITIONAL ADMISSION GRANTED.

VICTORY, GUIDRY and CLARK, JJ., would deny admission. 
      
      . In addition to the candor issue relating to petitioner's failure to timely amend his bar application, the Committee also raised an issue at the hearing regarding petitioner's failure to disclose some of his criminal history on his application to law school. The commissioner found no merit to either of the Committee’s assertions in this regard.
     