(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the
convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the
interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized).
Argued September 14, 1998 -- Decided December 4, 1998
PER CURIAM
This is a matter arising from the recommendation of the Character Committee of the New Jersey Board of
Bar Examiners to withhold certification of good character of William La Tourette, a candidate for admission to the
New Jersey Bar.
William C. La Tourette passed the written examination for the New Jersey Bar in 1997, after seven prior
unsuccessful attempts. His certified statement for admission to the bar disclosed a number of issues requiring further
investigation, including arrearages in child support, various questionable civil suits, and intemperate interaction with the
New Jersey Board of Bar Examiners and with members of his law school community. Following a hearing, an RG303
Panel of the Character Committee recommended that La Tourette's certification for admission to the bar be granted
on the condition that he not engage in solo practice for a year, unless supervised by an attorney approved by the
Committee on Character.
Subsequently, as required by RG 303(8), a Statewide Panel reviewed La Tourette's application for admission
and recommended that certification of good character be withheld. In reaching its determinations, the Statewide Panel
relied on findings that La Tourette had made insufficient efforts to reduce child support arrearages in the amount of
$14,000; that he had disclosed a client's confidence while working as a law clerk; that he had demonstrated disrespect
for judicial personnel, procedures and institutions by engaging in a course of litigation challenging bar admission
procedures; and that he had employed the Fair Debt Practices Act as a means to obtain revenue to support himself.
Two members of the Statewide Panel disagreed with the majority's recommendation. Those members found
that La Tourette's disclosure of a client confidence was the result of inexperience; that his credit litigation was a
reasonable exercise of rights under the act; and that his lawsuits against the Bar Examiners and Rutgers University
School of Law were motivated by a genuine belief that he had been wronged.
The Statewide Panel forwarded its report and the record to the Court for final determination. The Supreme
Court issued an Order requiring La Tourette to show cause why certification of his application for admission to the
New Jersey Bar should not be withheld for failure to meet the requirements of good character and fitness.
HELD: La Tourette presently lacks the character and fitness to practice law and certification of his character and
fitness is withheld without prejudice to his future right to present evidence of rehabilitation.
l. La Tourette's intemperate exchanges with Bar Examiners personnel and his litigation against the Bar Examiners
and his law school demonstrated an unwillingness to accept any personal responsibility for his difficulties. (pp. 3-4)
2. La Tourette's statements and correspondence concerning the conduct of the Bar Examiners show such marked
disrespect for judicial personnel, procedures and institutions as to belie a fidelity to the administration of justice. (pp.
4-5)
3. Although La Tourette is not presently fit to practice law, his character is not unsalvageable and he may present
evidence of reform and rehabilitation in the future to allow for an assessment of his moral character. Aside from other
possible showings, La Tourette must demonstrate that when placed in a position of responsibility, he can act honestly
and truthfully and with trustworthiness and reliability in his dealing with others. (pp. 5-7)
4. Certification of La Tourette's character and fitness is withheld without prejudice to his right to present to the
Committee on Character, no earlier than two years from the filing date of the Court's opinion, evidence of
rehabilitation in accordance with Matthews and this decision. (p. 7)
CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES HANDLER, POLLOCK, O'HERN, GARIBALDI, STEIN and COLEMAN
join in the Court's opinion.
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
E-
114 September Term 1997
IN THE MATTER OF
THE APPLICATION OF
WILLIAM C. LA TOURETTE
FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR
Argued September 14, 1998 -- Decided December 4, 1998
For Admission to the New Jersey Bar.
Walton W. Kingsbery, III argued the cause for
presenter Committee on Character.
William C. La Tourette argued the cause, pro
se (Margaret A. Holbrook, attorney; Ms.
Holbrook, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
William C. La Tourette passed the written examination for
the New Jersey Bar in 1997. His Certified Statement for
admission to the New Jersey Bar disclosed a number of issues
requiring further investigation, including arrearages in child
support, various questionable civil suits, and intemperate
interaction with the New Jersey Board of Bar Examiners (Bar
Examiners) and members of his law school community. An RG 303
Panel, convened pursuant to Regulation 303 of the Regulations
Governing the Committee on Character (RG 303), recommended that
La Tourette's certification for admission to the New Jersey Bar
be granted on the condition that he not engage in solo practice
for a year unless under the auspices of a supervising attorney
approved by the Committee. A Statewide Panel reviewed La
Tourette's application for admission as required by RG 303(8).
In its Report and Recommendation, the Statewide Panel recommended
that certification of good character be withheld. The Statewide
Panel forwarded its report and the record to this Court. On June
16, 1998, we ordered La Tourette to show cause why certification
of his application for admission to the New Jersey Bar should not
be withheld for failure to meet the requirements of good
character and fitness. The matter was presented to the Court on
September 14, 1998.
In determining that La Tourette was unfit to practice law,
the Statewide Panel relied on findings that the candidate had
made insufficient efforts to reduce arrearages of $14,000 in
child support; had disclosed a client's confidence while working
as a law clerk; had demonstrated disrespect for judicial
personnel, procedures and institutions by engaging in a course of
litigation challenging bar admission procedures; and had employed
the Fair Debt Practices Act not as a means to avoid collection of
monies that he did not owe, but as a means to obtain revenue to
support himself.
Two members of the Statewide Panel disagreed with the
majority's recommendation. They found that because of La
Tourette's inexperience at the time when he disclosed the
client's confidences, La Tourette believed that disclosure was
necessary to prevent the perpetration of a fraud on the tribunal.
The client had told La Tourette about a prior incident related to
the assault with which the client had been charged. Without the
knowledge of his attorney employer, La Tourette wrote a
memorandum informing the court of the client's statements. The
two panelists found that La Tourette's credit litigation was a
reasonable exercise of rights under the act, as evidenced by the
settlement of the cases by the creditors. The panelists also
found that his lawsuits against the Bar Examiners and Rutgers
University School of Law were motivated by a genuine belief that
he had been wronged.
Based on our independent review of the record, we find clear
and convincing evidence that La Tourette presently lacks the
character and fitness to practice law. Although his credit
litigation may have been justified, his intemperate exchanges
with Bar Examiners personnel and his litigation against the Bar
Examiners and his law school demonstrated an unwillingness to
accept any personal responsibility for his difficulties. (La
Tourette had unsuccessfully taken the bar examination seven
times.) In one letter to the Secretary of the Bar Examiners, La
Tourette characterized all communications with the Bar Examiners
as "marked by petty cruelty." He added that a court order
compelling him to pay the examination fee was a "fraud and
deceit," and that the Bar Examiners had committed acts of
"purposeful harassment and cruelty." His suit against his law
school charged that its failure of performance caused him to fail
the bar examination. His suit against the Bar Examiners
exhibited a callous disregard of the rights of others. One
lawsuit sought to restrain the publication of bar results. La
Tourette filed three separate federal suits, one of which sought
injunctive relief to strike down the requirement of passage of a
bar examination as a prerequisite for a license to practice law.
These bar-related suits were all summarily dismissed by federal
and state courts. Although not yet bound by Rule of Professional
Conduct 3.1, which requires a lawyer to have a good faith basis
for bringing or defending suit, La Tourette is covered by the
provisions of N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1, the frivolous litigation
statute. A claim constitutes frivolous litigation if "judging
the [claimant's] conduct as a whole," the claim "was brought in
bad faith, for the purpose of delay and harassment." Deutch &
Shur, P.C. v. Roth,
284 N.J. Super. 133, 139 (Law Div. 1995).
Given the summary disposition of his claims, they may be viewed
as bordering on the frivolous. La Tourette further demonstrated
his lack of respect for judicial officers and institutions by
surreptitiously recording conversations with Bar Examiners
personnel. We conclude that La Tourette's statements and
correspondence concerning the conduct of the Bar Examiners show
such marked disrespect for judicial personnel, procedures and
institutions as to belie a fidelity to the administration of
justice. In re McLaughlin,
144 N.J. 133, 154 (1996). We agree
with the Statewide Panel that certification of La Tourette's
application for admission should be withheld.
Because the Court's concerns are with an applicant's present
fitness to practice law, evidence of reform and rehabilitation
becomes relevant to an assessment of an applicant's moral
character. In re Matthews,
94 N.J. 59, 81 (1983). "Where
evidence convincingly demonstrates reform and rehabilitation, it
can overcome the adverse inference of unfitness arising from past
misconduct and, if persuasive, present fitness may be found."
Ibid. Although we find respondent presently unfit to practice
law, we do not find that the candidate's character is
unsalvageable. His very persistence at gaining admission
demonstrates a strong desire to become a member of the bar. What
is missing is an acceptance and understanding of what is expected
from every member of the bar concerning civility and respect for
judiciary personnel and everyone with whom an attorney comes in
contact.
The following types of evidence are probative of reform and
rehabilitation: (1) an applicant's "complete candor in all
filings and proceedings conducted by the Committee on Character";
(2) an applicant's "renunciation of the past misconduct"; (3)
"[t]he absence of any misconduct over a period of intervening
years"; (4) "a particularly productive use of [the applicant's]
time subsequent to the misconduct"; and (5) "[a]ffirmative
recommendations from people aware of the applicant's misconduct
who specifically consider the individual's fitness in light of
that behavior." Id. at 82.
We do not foreclose the possibility that La Tourette will be
able to produce sufficient evidence of the character traits
necessary to establish his fitness to practice law. In re
Jenkins,
94 N.J. 458, 470-71 (1983). Such evidence could, we
suggest, demonstrate that he has consistently supported his
children, has implemented a plan for repayment of any remaining
creditors, has availed himself of the justice system only
consistent with the standards expected of one aspiring to become
a member of the bar, and perhaps has become involved in community
service or volunteer activities. Finally, he must demonstrate
that "when placed in a position of responsibility, he can act
honestly and truthfully and with trustworthiness and reliability
in his dealing with others." Matthews, supra, 94 N.J. at 83.
Accordingly, we adopt the Committee's recommendation and
direct that certification of the candidate's character and
fitness be withheld without prejudice to the candidate's right to
present to the Committee, no earlier than two years from the
filing date of this opinion, evidence of rehabilitation in
accordance with Matthews, supra, and this decision.
CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES HANDLER, POLLOCK, O'HERN,
GARIBALDI, STEIN, and COLEMAN join in this opinion.
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
E-
114 September Term 1997
IN THE MATTER OF
THE APPLICATION OF
WILLIAM C. LA TOURETTE O R D E R
for admission to the Bar
of the State of New Jersey.
This matter having come before the Court on an Order to
Show Cause why the character certification of WILLIAM C. LA
TOURETTE should not be withheld, and good cause appearing;
It is ORDERED that certification of the candidate's
character and fitness is withheld, without prejudice to his right
to present to the Committee on Character, no earlier than two
years from the filing date of this opinion, evidence of
rehabilitation in accordance with In re Matthews,
94 N.J. 59
(1983) and the Court's opinion in the within matter.
WITNESS, the Honorable Deborah T. Poritz, Chief
Justice, at Trenton, this 4th day of December, 1998.
/s/ Stephen W. Townsend
CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT
NO. E-114 SEPTEMBER TERM 1997
Application for Admission to the New Jersey Bar
Disposition
IN THE MATTER OF
THE APPLICATION OF
WILLIAM C. LA TOURETTE
FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR
OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Decided December 4, 1998
Order returnable
Opinion by PER CURIAM