## Facts

- Richard E. Kwasnik, a New York-admitted attorney (since 1967), passed the July 1987 California bar examination and underwent a moral-character investigation.
- In 1970, Kwasnik was involved in a car accident that caused the death of Steven Smilanich; no criminal charges were filed, and Kwasnik pleaded guilty to a traffic infraction and was fined.
- Smilanich’s widow and three minor children obtained a 1974 wrongful-death judgment against Kwasnik for $232,234.16; his insurer paid $10,000 (policy limit).
- Kwasnik made no payments until wage garnishment began in 1975, then paid about $42 biweekly; he paid $4,649 total between 1975 and January 1980 and paid nothing thereafter.
- After a rejected settlement proposal, Kwasnik filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 1980; the Smilanich judgment was the only scheduled debt and was discharged in 1981.
- In Florida character proceedings (initiated in 1979), Kwasnik was charged with three instances of wrongful conduct, including false or evasive statements about the Smilanich matter and his finances; Florida initially denied admission but later, in 1987, ordered his admission upon finding he satisfied moral-character requirements.
- In California, a State Bar hearing panel found a prima facie showing of present good moral character and rehabilitation and recommended admission, supported by strong character letters and an unblemished New York disciplinary record.
- The State Bar Court Review Department recommended denial, stressing that Kwasnik paid only under garnishment, had not contacted or paid the Smilanich family since 1980 despite improved finances, and had not accepted responsibility for the family’s loss.
- The Committee of Bar Examiners refused to certify Kwasnik for admission for lack of “good moral character,” and Kwasnik sought review in the California Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether Kwasnik demonstrated present good moral character and rehabilitation sufficient for admission despite past conduct relating to the wrongful-death judgment, bankruptcy, and prior bar-admission proceedings.
2. Whether reliance on a lawful bankruptcy discharge, and nonpayment of the discharged wrongful-death judgment, could be treated as a decisive moral failing consistent with federal bankruptcy policy.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the State Bar’s refusal to certify Kwasnik for admission.
- The Court held Kwasnik established a prima facie case of present good moral character and rehabilitation.
- The Court concluded the State Bar failed to rebut that showing with clear and convincing evidence of current unfitness.
- The Court ordered that Kwasnik be admitted to the State Bar of California.

## Legal Principles

- Bar admission focuses on present fitness to practice law; past wrongdoing does not mandate exclusion when sustained rehabilitation and current good character are shown.
- Once an applicant makes a prima facie showing of present good moral character, the State Bar bears the burden to prove current unfitness by clear and convincing evidence.
- Evidence of long-term law-abiding conduct, a clean disciplinary record, and credible character testimony may outweigh serious but temporally remote misconduct.
- Financial history may be considered in moral-character review, but an applicant’s lawful use of bankruptcy and a resulting discharge cannot, by itself, justify denial of admission.
- Denying admission solely for nonpayment of a discharged debt conflicts with federal bankruptcy “fresh start” policy; character findings must rest on evidence of present dishonesty or disregard of legal obligations.

## Conclusion

The California Supreme Court ordered Kwasnik’s admission, concluding that substantial evidence of rehabilitation and present fitness overcame concerns stemming from remote misconduct and that a lawful bankruptcy discharge could not be treated as a standalone basis to find lack of good moral character.


Kwasnik v. State Bar of California, 50 Cal. 3d 1061 (Cal. 1990)