## Facts

- Jacob Benjamin Henry, a 2010 law graduate, applied for admission to the South Dakota bar.
- During law school, Henry sought counseling and was diagnosed with Bipolar II Disorder after reporting symptoms including anxiety and a period of auditory hallucinations.
- Henry was prescribed medication, later stopped it, and gave differing explanations over time for discontinuing treatment; he also discontinued counseling for extended periods.
- In early 2010, Henry had two alcohol-related driving incidents: one resulting in a reckless-driving plea after a DUI arrest, and a later DUI conviction with a short license suspension.
- In a separate jurisdiction’s bar-admissions process, Henry underwent substance-use and psychological evaluations that did not identify a substance-use disorder and concluded his prior bipolar diagnosis was in remission; he was admitted there.
- While his South Dakota application was pending, Henry obtained another psychiatric evaluation recommending medication, counseling, and follow-up, but he declined to follow those recommendations, asserting he did not need treatment.
- The South Dakota Board of Bar Examiners held a formal character-and-fitness hearing and recommended denial, citing concerns about Henry’s candor, incomplete mental-health disclosures, treatment decisions, and judgment reflected in his conduct.

## Issues

1. Whether the Board’s inquiries into Henry’s mental-health history and its reliance on that information in evaluating fitness violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by discriminating based on disability rather than current ability to practice.
2. Whether the record supported the Board’s determination that Henry did not presently meet the good moral character and fitness requirements for admission.

## Decision

- The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the Board’s recommendation and denied Henry’s application for admission at that time.
- The court held the Board’s mental-health-related inquiries and consideration of the evidence did not violate the ADA because the inquiry was tied to individualized assessment of current fitness and conduct, not a diagnosis alone.
- The court concluded Henry had not met his burden to demonstrate present good moral character and fitness, emphasizing candor concerns, inconsistent explanations, and recent alcohol-related offenses.

## Legal Principles

- Bar applicants bear the burden to prove present good moral character and fitness for admission.
- A licensing authority may consider mental-health history when it is connected to an individualized evaluation of current fitness, judgment, and public protection; the ADA bars adverse action based solely on disability status.
- Candor and consistent, complete disclosure in the admissions process are essential; equivocal, incomplete, or shifting explanations may independently support denial.
- Jurisdictions make independent admissions decisions and are not bound by another state’s determination of character and fitness.
- Denial of admission in a character-and-fitness proceeding is protective and may be without prejudice to reapplication upon a materially improved record.

## Conclusion

The court denied admission because the Board permissibly assessed Henry’s present fitness through conduct-based concerns—particularly candor failures, inconsistent accounts about treatment, and recent impaired-driving incidents—and the ADA did not bar narrowly targeted mental-health inquiry used for an individualized character-and-fitness determination.


In re Henry, 841 N.W.2d 471 (S.D. 2013)