## Facts

- Paul Raymond Converse applied in 1998 to sit for the Nebraska bar examination for July 1998 admission.
- Converse’s law school dean submitted a certification indicating that bar authorities should further inquire into Converse’s moral character or fitness.
- The Nebraska State Bar Commission investigated and reviewed evidence of Converse’s repeated, highly confrontational communications about law school administrators and faculty.
- The record reflected that Converse publicized grievances within the law school and to external audiences, including media and legal officials.
- The Commission found that Converse’s communications included personal attacks and efforts to intimidate or humiliate others, sometimes with sexually inappropriate overtones.
- By letter dated June 29, 1998, the Commission denied Converse permission to take the exam, concluding he lacked the requisite moral character for admission on examination.
- After an evidentiary hearing on September 15, 1998, the Commission reaffirmed denial and notified Converse on December 18, 1998 that he could not sit for the exam at that time.
- Converse appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court, arguing the denial improperly relied on constitutionally protected expression and was unsupported under Nebraska moral-character standards.

## Issues

1. Whether denying bar-exam eligibility based in part on the applicant’s speech or expressive conduct violated the First Amendment.
2. Whether the applicant failed to prove good moral character under Nebraska law, such that the Commission had sufficient cause to deny permission to sit for the bar examination.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the Commission’s denial (per curiam).
- The court held the Commission could consider an applicant’s speech and expressive conduct in assessing moral character, even assuming some expression was constitutionally protected.
- The court held the Commission’s conclusion that Converse lacked the requisite moral character was supported by clear and convincing evidence and was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
- Converse remained ineligible to sit for the bar examination at that time.

## Legal Principles

- Bar admission character-and-fitness screening is a prospective determination of an applicant’s fitness to practice law, not a proceeding to punish speech.
- An applicant bears the burden to prove good moral character by clear and convincing evidence.
- A bar authority may evaluate an applicant’s speech and related conduct as evidence of character and fitness, including where the expression is arguably protected, when the pattern of behavior reflects adversely on the applicant’s suitability for the profession.
- Appellate review of a bar commission’s denial is deferential; the decision will be disturbed only if arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.

## Conclusion

The Nebraska Supreme Court upheld the bar commission’s denial of Converse’s request to sit for the bar exam, ruling that character-and-fitness evaluators may consider an applicant’s speech and conduct as evidence of moral character and that the record supported the finding that Converse failed to meet the required standard.


In re Application of Converse, 258 Neb. 159, 602 N.W.2d 500 (Neb. 1999)