## Facts

- Matthew F. Hale graduated from law school, passed the Illinois bar examination, and applied for admission to practice law in Illinois.
- Hale publicly advocated racist and white supremacist views and was a leader of the World Church of the Creator.
- Because of Hale’s public statements and leadership role, his application was reviewed by the Illinois Committee on Character and Fitness (the Committee), part of the Illinois bar admissions process.
- After investigation and hearings, the Committee found Hale lacked the moral character and fitness required for admission and refused to certify him for admission.
- The Committee did not base its denial on identified prior dishonest, criminal, or otherwise disqualifying misconduct.
- Instead, the Committee concluded that Hale’s views conflicted with the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct and that he was likely to violate those rules in the future if admitted.
- The Committee also reasoned that, in regulating attorneys, the constitutional interests tied to equality and nondiscrimination outweighed protecting an individual’s First Amendment interest in holding unpopular views.
- Hale petitioned the Supreme Court of Illinois to review and reverse the Committee’s denial of certification for admission to the bar.
- The Illinois Supreme Court denied Hale’s petition by order without a majority opinion; Justice Heiple issued a published dissent.

## Issues

1. Whether an otherwise qualified bar applicant may be denied admission based primarily on his racist beliefs and advocacy, where the admissions body identifies no past misconduct that independently justifies denial.
2. Whether a character-and-fitness denial may rest on a prediction that the applicant will likely violate the Rules of Professional Conduct in the future.
3. Whether the Illinois Supreme Court should grant review and issue a reasoned decision where the denial raises significant constitutional questions concerning speech and association.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Illinois denied Hale’s petition for review, leaving the Committee’s refusal to certify him for admission in place.
- The court’s action was by summary order; no majority reasoning was published in the official report.
- Justice Heiple dissented, arguing that the court should have addressed the constitutional questions raised by denying bar admission based on beliefs and speech rather than proven misconduct.

## Legal Principles

- Bar admission is conditioned on a showing of good character and fitness, and admissions authorities may consider an applicant’s suitability to comply with professional duties.
- A denial that turns on an applicant’s viewpoints and speech can raise First Amendment concerns, including whether the state is conditioning a professional license on agreement with favored ideas rather than on conduct.
- Predicting future violations, without concrete past misconduct, raises questions about the proper scope of character-and-fitness review and the evidentiary basis needed to refuse certification.
- A state supreme court’s summary denial of a petition leaves the administrative decision in force but provides little or no guidance because it does not include a controlling explanation.
- A published dissent is not binding law, but it may frame the constitutional and procedural concerns the dissenting justice believed warranted full review and a written decision.

## Conclusion

In In re Matter of Matthew F. Hale, Petitioner, the Illinois Committee on Character and Fitness refused to certify Hale for admission to the Illinois bar based not on prior disqualifying acts, but on his open advocacy of racist ideology, the Committee’s view that those positions conflicted with professional-conduct obligations, and its prediction that he would violate those obligations in the future; the Supreme Court of Illinois denied Hale’s petition for review by order, leaving the denial intact, while Justice Heiple’s published dissent argued that refusing admission on this basis raised serious First Amendment questions and called for full review and a reasoned ruling.


In re Matter of Matthew F. Hale, Petitioner, 723 N.E.2d 206 (1999)