## Facts

- In 1974, James Joseph Hamm participated in a planned robbery of two men who came to Tucson to buy marijuana; the robbery culminated in two “execution style” killings in the desert.
- Hamm pled guilty to first-degree murder and received a life sentence.
- Hamm served nearly seventeen years in prison, where he maintained strong institutional behavior and pursued education and rehabilitative activities.
- Hamm was paroled and later received an absolute discharge in December 2001.
- While on parole, Hamm graduated from Arizona State University College of Law and passed the July 1999 Arizona bar examination.
- In 2004, Hamm submitted his character-and-fitness materials; after a formal hearing, the Committee on Character and Fitness concluded he had not proven the requisite character and fitness for admission.
- The Committee identified concerns including Hamm’s account of responsibility for the killings, omissions and lack of candor in his application and testimony (including a domestic altercation), decades-long failure to meet child-support and parental responsibilities, and conduct during the admissions process reflecting poor judgment and unwillingness to accept correction.

## Issues

1. Whether an applicant previously convicted of first-degree murder proved present good moral character and fitness for admission to the Arizona bar.
2. Whether doubts arising from incomplete acceptance of responsibility, lack of candor in the admissions process, and long-neglected legal and familial obligations warranted denial of admission despite evidence of rehabilitation.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court denied Hamm’s application for admission to practice law.
- The Court held Hamm failed to carry his burden to prove present good moral character.
- The Court gave substantial weight to the Committee’s credibility-based findings from live testimony and the developed record.
- The Court concluded that Hamm’s post-conviction achievements did not overcome concerns about responsibility, candor, and ongoing character-related deficiencies.

## Legal Principles

- Bar applicants bear the burden of proving present good moral character and fitness; the court retains final authority over admission decisions.
- Extremely serious past criminal conduct is not necessarily an automatic bar, but it requires an especially persuasive showing of rehabilitation and present character.
- Candor and completeness in the application process are central to good moral character; omissions, misleading answers, and non-credible explanations weigh heavily against admission.
- Incomplete acceptance of responsibility for grave misconduct, particularly when inconsistent with established facts, undermines a claim of rehabilitation.
- Longstanding failure to meet legal and moral obligations (including child support) and misstatements about those obligations may demonstrate current unfitness.
- Doubts about an applicant’s present character are resolved against admission to protect the integrity of the profession and the public.

## Conclusion

The Arizona Supreme Court denied admission because Hamm did not prove present good moral character, emphasizing the exceptional seriousness of the homicides and finding that concerns about candor, credibility, acceptance of responsibility, and long-neglected obligations outweighed evidence of rehabilitation and professional promise.


In re Hamm, 123 P.3d 652 (Ariz. 2005)