VA-SEN: DSCC Demanding Release Of Allen's Bar Application -- Will Dailies Cover It?
Okay, so now the DSCC is demanding the release of GOP Senator George Allen's Bar Application. The DSCC's J.B. Poersch has sent a letter to the Virginia State Bar, asking it to release the records and noting that Allen's name has made two appearances in court records which he has refused to account for. Poersch points out that Allen may have been required to address the court-records appearances on his application, and notes that release of the record "may be the only way Virginians can learn the truth" about this. So, a question. Both the Times and the Washington Post devoted extensive coverage to Allen's attack on Dem Jim Webb's novels, deeming it newsworthy simply because Allen raised the issue. Now that the DSCC has raised the issue of the court records, when will the Times and Post write about it?
This reminds me of the coverage that Lieberman got when his under-powered web site went down. He blamed Lamont, and the press was all over it. When it turned out to be mismanagement on Lieberman's part, the story died immediately.
October 30, 2006 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's why Allen's Bar Application may be important:
SECTION III: CHARACTER AND FITNESS REQUIREMENTS
No person shall be licensed to practice law in Virginia by the Virginia Board of Bar Examiners unless such person first produces evidence satisfactory to the Board that the applicant is a person of honest demeanor and good moral character and possesses the requisite fitness to perform the obligations and responsibilities of a practicing attorney. The applicant has the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he or she possesses these qualifications. If an applicant fails to answer any question on the Character and Fitness Questionnaire or which is otherwise propounded by the Board, or to supply any requested documentary material, the Board may find that the applicant has not met the burden of proving his or her good moral character.
The primary purposes of character and fitness screening before admission to the Virginia Bar are to assure the protection of the public and safeguard the system of justice. An attorney should be one whose record of conduct justifies the trust of clients, adversaries, courts, and others with respect to the professional duties owed to them. A record manifesting a significant deficiency in the honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, or reliability of an applicant may constitute a basis for denial of admission. The revelation or discovery of any of the following may be treated as cause for further inquiry before the Board decides whether the applicant possesses the character and fitness to practice law:
commission or conviction of a crime;
violation of the honor code of the applicant's college or university, law school, or other academic misconduct;
making of false statements or omissions, including failing to provide complete and accurate information concerning the applicant's past;
misconduct in employment;
other than an honorable discharge from any branch of the armed services;
acts involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
abuse of legal process;
neglect of financial responsibilities;
neglect of professional obligations;
violation of an order of a court;
denial of admission to the bar in another jurisdiction on character and fitness grounds;
disciplinary action by a lawyer disciplinary agency or other professional disciplinary agency of any jurisdiction, including pending, unresolved disciplinary complaints against the applicant;
commission of an act constituting the unauthorized practice of law, or unresolved complaints involving allegations of the unauthorized practice of law;
any other conduct which reflects adversely upon the character or fitness of an applicant.
The Board shall determine whether the present character and fitness of an applicant qualify the applicant for admission to the practice of law. In making this determination, the following factors will be considered in assigning weight and significance to the applicant's prior conduct:
age of the applicant at the time of the conduct;
recency of the conduct;
reliability of the information concerning the conduct;
seriousness of the conduct;
factors underlying the conduct;
cumulative effect of the conduct or information;
evidence of rehabilitation;
positive social contributions of the applicant since the conduct;
candor of the applicant in the admissions process; and
materiality of any omissions or misrepresentations.
http://www.vbbe.state.va.us/barrules.html
October 30, 2006 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reminds me of something else about Lieberman: the $387,000 petty cash fund. How come Schumer and the DSCC can demand that Allen release 30 year old bar application records - which are totally irrelevant to this race and ridiculous that the DSCC is asking for them - but they can't demand that Lieberman produce the records to substantiate $387,000 taken out of his campaign in cash only 3 months ago?
Allen looks bad for making an issue of Webb's novels and the DSCC looks bad for making an issue of 30 year old junk. Its insulting to the voters.
October 30, 2006 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Allen could also allow the VA Board of Bar Overseers to release his criminal history, if they have it. Will the Post and other VA papers call for him to release these records?
I don't know under what circumstances a court order could be obtained. Does VA have a strong Freedom of Information Act?
§ 54.1-3925.2. Access to criminal history records.
The Board is authorized to obtain criminal history record information relating to an applicant from any state or federal law-enforcement agency. Any information so obtained is for the exclusive use of the Board and the character and fitness committee and shall not be released to any other person or agency except in furtherance of the investigation of the applicant or with the authorization of the applicant or upon court order.
October 30, 2006 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, looks like FOIA is a NO, but Allen can just go down to the Board of Bar Overseers and get a copy himself. What has he got to hide, right?
§ 54.1-108. Disclosure of official records.
Official records of the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation or the Department of Health Professions or any board named in this title shall be subject to the disclosure provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (§ 2.2-3700 et seq.), except for the following:
1. Examination questions, papers, booklets and answer sheets, which may be disclosed at the discretion of the board administering or causing to be administered such examinations.
2. Applications for admission to examinations or for licensure, and the scoring records maintained by any board or by the Departments on individual licensees or applicants. However, this material may be made available during normal working hours for copying by the subject individual at his expense at the office of the Department or board which possesses the material.
3. Records of active investigations being conducted by the Departments or any board.
(1979, c. 408, § 54-1.41; 1982, c. 207; 1988, c. 765; 1993, c. 499.)
October 30, 2006 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
3,870 volunteers getting $100 each from petty cash is $387,000. I recall Lieberman getting around 4k volunteers toward the end of the primary. Nothing strange there.
Part of the reason Lamont is doing so poorly is that people like Matt Stoller et al are peddling crap when there are so many substantive issues that Lieberman could be hit hard on. Lamnot has run a lame, ineffectual campaign against a candidate that should be beatable. I'm still hoping for a late Schlesinger surge, but I think Lamont will cost the Dems the Senate. Unless we can pick up Missouri or Tennessee in addition to VA.
October 30, 2006 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
If they are volunteers, why are they getting paid?
FEC campaign finance rules don't let you just give 4000 people $100 for walking-around money in this day and age.
October 30, 2006 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
If a politician can siphon off $387,000 from his campaign in cash and write on a form "stipend volunteers" and thats all there is to it, there are no campaign finance laws.
In fact, then there would effectively be no laws against bribing politicians because theres none of them so stupid they couldn't figure how to do it via their campaign petty cash.
Lamont's official blog had a graph of the other senate primary campaigns throughout the nation. I don't think any of them spent $2,000 in petty cash. Why didn't they all have hundreds of thousands of dollars in petty cash?
October 30, 2006 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
He likely doesn't want to release his bar application not because of what's there, but of what's not there, i.e. he probably didn't report his arrests.
Would the Virginia bar have had any mechanism to check his arrest history or do they just trust the sworn application?
If these arrests aren't detailed on his bar application then the board should be investigating this. In fact someone on the board should be checking this right now.... Lying or omitting information on your law application is a serious offense. Yes this is speculation, but it would be a crime NOT to speculate as our friends on the right say.
More sleuthing required here.
October 31, 2006 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink