## Facts

- John Wali Mustafa II passed the July 1991 District of Columbia bar examination and applied for admission.
- While a third-year law student at UCLA, Mustafa and another student co-managed a moot court program checking account funded by student dues.
- Between October 1990 and February 1991, Mustafa wrote thirteen checks totaling $4,331; about $3,510 was used for personal purposes.
- Mustafa repeatedly reimbursed himself for expenses that were, or would be, reimbursed by the university, and at times left no record of the expenditure or misstated the purpose on check stubs (including false descriptions for two $1,500 checks).
- The misconduct was discovered in June 1991 after Mustafa admitted taking funds and the co-manager found the account short; the account was closed.
- Mustafa made restitution (including a $2,200 cashier’s check) and disclosed the misconduct to a professor and to the admissions authorities the same day it was reported to the dean.
- UCLA investigated, found full restitution, and issued a confidential letter of censure for a limited period.
- The District of Columbia Committee on Admissions found conversion of entrusted funds but recommended admission based on restitution, candor in the investigative process, and favorable character references.

## Issues

1. Whether an applicant who converted funds entrusted to him in a law school program, with deceptive recordkeeping, proved the good moral character required for admission to the District of Columbia Bar.
2. Whether restitution, later candor, and character evidence outweighed the seriousness and recency of the misconduct.

## Decision

- The District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied the application for admission.
- The court accepted the Committee’s factual findings as supported, but independently rejected the recommendation to admit.
- The court concluded that, given the gravity of the conversion and the short time since the misconduct, the applicant had not met his burden to establish present good moral character.

## Legal Principles

- The applicant bears the burden to prove good moral character for bar admission.
- The court generally defers to the Committee’s factfinding if supported by substantial evidence, but the ultimate moral-character determination rests with the court.
- Conversion or misappropriation of entrusted funds is highly probative of unfitness because it reflects dishonesty and breach of fiduciary-like responsibility.
- Restitution and post-misconduct candor are mitigating factors but may be insufficient where the misconduct is serious and the period of demonstrated rehabilitation is brief.
- A short interval between serious financial dishonesty and the application can preclude a present finding of rehabilitation adequate for admission.

## Conclusion

The court denied admission because the applicant’s repeated conversion of entrusted funds, coupled with deceptive documentation, was too recent to permit a reliable finding of rehabilitation and present good moral character despite restitution and favorable evidence.


In re Mustafa, 631 A.2d 45 (D.C. 1993)