
    In re COMMITTEE ON BAR ADMISSIONS CFN-464632.
    No. 2016-BA-1318.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    July 14, 2016.
   In re Confidential Party; — Plaintiff; Applying For Petition For Leave to Sit For Bar Examination and For Appointment of Commission Upon Petitioner’s Passing of the Bar Examination.

| T Denied.

JOHNSON, C.J., dissents and assigns reasons.

WEIMER, J., dissents and assigns reasons.

CRICHTON, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.

JOHNSON, Chief Justice,

dissents and assigns reasons.

hi disagree with the majority decision in denying this applicant the opportunity to sit for the July 2016 bar examination. I find it troubling that the Committee has now raised its concerns regarding the applicant’s character, when he has already been permitted to sit for the last two bar examinations in July 2015 and February 2016. This court has already waived Supreme Court Rule XVII § 8, which prohibited an applicant to reapply to retake the bar examination after failing to pass five examinations.

In over 20 years, I cannot recall an occasion when this court has refused an applicant to sit for the bar examination, when he has been allowed to sit on two previous occasions. Our usual practice is to allow an applicant to sit for the bar examination and if he successfully passes the examination, he may apply to this court for the appointment of a commissioner in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XVII, § 9 to address whatever concerns we have about character and fitness.

WEIMER, J.,

dissenting.

|!Although I share disappointment and concern about the applicant’s record with my learned colleagues, I respectfully dissent.

When an applicant has a record of criminal offenses, this court typically will allow the applicant to take the bar exam and, if the applicant passes the exam, the applicant may, request the appointment of a commissioner to evaluate the applicant’s character and fitness. See, e.g., In re May, 12-1031, p. 1 (La.10/23/12), 101 So.3d 438, 438 (allowing the applicant to take the bar exam, notwithstanding the fact he had a criminal record that he had failed to disclose on his law school application).

Of course, permission to sit for the bar exam is no guarantee of admission to the bar, even if an applicant passes the exam. When, as here, the Committee on Bar Admissions has declined to certify an applicant for admission prior to taking the bar exam,, the applicant still bears the burden of proving good character and fitness to practice law, invoking the procedures described in La, Sup.Ct. Rule XVII, Sect. 9(D).

Here, I would allow the applicant to take the bar exam and, if the applicant passes the exam, the applicant could request the appointment of a commissioner to evaluate the applicant’s character and fitness. See La. Sup.Ct. Rule XVII, Sect. 9(D); see also In re Committee on Bar Admissions CFN-653816, 2016-1290, p. 1 (La.7/8/16), 197 So.3d 160, 161 (Weimer, J. dissenting) (indicating that the most “appropriate time” for the court to evaluate the character and fitness 'of an applicant |2whose background includes alleged criminal offenses is in separate proceedings involving “a hearing before a commissioner,” not in a request to take the bar exam.).

CRICHTON, J.,

additionally concurs and assigns reasons: •

|J agree with the court’s decision to deny the petitioner permission to sit for the July 2016 bar examination. Pursuant to La. Sup.Ct. Rule XVII, sec. 5(D), an applicant bears the burden of proving his or her good moral character and fitness to practice law" by clear and convincing evidence. In my view, in light of the applicant’s criminal history, he has failed to provide any showing whatsoever that he should be allowed to take the bar examination. See In re: Comm. on Bar Admissions CFN-653816, 16-1290 (La.7/8/16), 197 So.3d 160.  