In the Matter of Application of Strzempek

In this case we are asked to decide whether to grant the petition for admission to the Maryland Bar of Gregory John Strzempek, who filed his application on December 19, 2005, and who, thereafter, failed to timely supplement it with the Board of Law Examiners, with the information that he had been arrested on February 10, 2006, and convicted in the State of Virginia for driving while intoxicated, reckless driving, eluding a police officer, and unsafe lane changing, after pleading guilty on April 12, 2006. Strzempek eventually disclosed his convictions and sentence to the Board, albeit nine months later, only after being advised that he had passed the Bar Exam.

The Board filed an exception to his admission and referred the matter to the Character Committee, which held a hearing and recommended that Strzempek be denied admission, because his failure to immediately disclose impugned his present character and fitness. Strzempek appealed to the Board of Law Examiners, and the Board recommended that he be admitted, because the voluntarily disclosure, although late, was deemed a mitigating factor. This Court ordered Strzempek to “show cause why the favorable recommendation of the State Board of Law Examiners should be accepted and why the adverse recommendation of the Character Committee for the Fourth Appellate Circuit should be rejected by the Court.” Upon hearing argument from Strzempek’s counsel and an independent review of the record, we shall conclude that Strzempek presently does not possess the requisite moral character and fitness for the practice of law, required for admission to the Maryland Bar.1

*105I. Background

The facts are undisputed. Gregory John Strzempek was licensed to practice law in the State of New York for twenty-four years, when he filed a Bar Application with the Maryland Board of Law Examiners, on December 19, 2005.2 At the time of the application, Strzempek answered “none” to Question 11(a),3 asking for “a complete record of all criminal proceedings (including traffic citations, arrests, and summonses),” and also answered “No” to Question 17, which asked:4

Have there been any circumstances or unfavorable incidents in your life, whether at school, college, law school, business, or otherwise, which may have a bearing upon your character or fitness to practice law, not called for by the questions contained in this questionnaire or disclosed in your answers? If so, give full details, including any assertions or implications of dishonesty, misconduct, misrepresentation, financial irresponsibility, and disciplinary measures imposed (if any) by attaching a supplemental statement....

Strzempek also affixed his signature on the application immediately beneath Question 19,5 which informed applicants of their continuing responsibility to disclose relevant information:

Affirmation of Applicant’s Duty of Full, Candid Disclosure and Applicant’s Continuing Duty to Submit Written Notice of Changes to Information Sought by the Application: I understand that the required disclosures in this questionnaire are of a continuing nature. I hereby acknowledge my duty to respond fully and candidly to each question or required disclosure and to ensure that my responses are accurate and current at all times until I *106 am. formally admitted to the Bar of the State of Maryland. I will advise the Board immediately and in writing of any changes in the information disclosed in or sought by this questionnaire, including any pertinent facts developed after the initial ftling of this application and the facts of any incident occurring subsequent to the initial ftling of this application.

I do solemnly declare and affirm under the penalties of perjury, that the matters and facts set forth in the foregoing application are true and correct.

I have made and retained a copy of this entire application for my records and for use in the event that the original is lost in the mail or during the character investigation.

(Italics, underlining and emboldening in original).

On February 10, 2006, approximately two weeks before Strzempek was scheduled to take the February Bar Exam, he was arrested in Fairfax County, Virginia, and charged with driving while intoxicated, refusal of a breath test, reckless driving, eluding a police officer, and unsafe lane changing; he was taken to the Fairfax County Adult Detention Center and released on bail. On April 12, 2006, Strzempek pled guilty to driving while intoxicated, reckless driving, eluding a police officer, and unsafe lane changing, and after paying $641 in fines, was sentenced to 360 days in jail, with 356 days suspended on the DWI charge, as well as suspended driving privileges and probation for one year.6 He served the four-day jail sentence from April 14 to April 18, 2006. On April 27, 2006, only nine days after having been released from jail, Strzempek attended his Character Committee interview, during which he did not disclose his arrest, convictions, jail sentence, suspended driver’s license or probation, disclosure that likely would have triggered additional investigation at that time.7 Strzempek also did not supplement his application.

*107He took the July 2006 Maryland Bar Examination and was advised that he passed on Friday, November 5. Three days later, on November 8, a Monday, Strzempek sent the Board his Affirmation Form8—a form sent with the Bar Examination results requiring a successful applicant to affirm that the information contained in the original application was still current. With the Form, Strzempek enclosed his conviction record and a letter that reflected that he had been convicted of the five offenses and paid fines of $87 and $50 for the lesser traffic violations, but even then omitted the $641 fine, the four days in prison and the suspended sentence, imposed for driving while intoxicated. Upon receipt, the Board filed an exception to Strzempek’s admission, and the file was returned to the Character Committee to enable Strzempek to explain his lack of candor regarding the Virginia charges.

The Character Committee conducted a hearing on December 5, 2007,9 during which Strzempek acknowledged that he *108had not disclosed the incident, particularly during his character interview, and provided the following explanation:

[O]ne of the things I was thinking or my main thought during the process was at the time I had my meeting I had not even taken the bar exam. And since it had been quite a number of years since I took an exam, I was uncertain as to whether I would be successful on the exam.

And I felt at the time that I would wait until I obtained the results and then at that point I would—I would either pass the exam, at which point I would promptly inform the Law Examiners and the Character Committee of the incident, or I would not pass the exam and decide to retake it, at which point I would also disclose the incident, or I would decide that, you know, either due to time constraints, you know, or that I wouldn’t—or I didn’t think I would pass, ultimately pass the exam, I’d decide to withdraw my application. So in my own mind, as long as I thought that there was a probability that I could withdraw the application, I didn’t see any need to expose myself to that type of embarrassment in disclosing that and also have that kind of material lying around in some file which, you know, I really didn’t know where it would ultimately end up. And that was my reason.

After conducting a full hearing, the Character Committee recommended that Strzempek not be admitted to the Maryland Bar:

The Applicant’s explanation for his failure to make immediate disclosure to the State Board of his arrest, conviction *109and jail term and his lack of candor at the interview with [the Character Committee Representative] was that he did not want his information sitting in a file as long as there was a probability of his not passing the Bar or withdrawing his application. While acknowledging that he violated the requirement for immediate and full disclosure of any changes to his application, the applicant stated that he did not make the disclosure because of his concerns about the privacy of information concerning his arrest and conviction. He maintained this position even after being reminded that the application file is private and confidential and that his court case was part of the public record. Further, the applicant stated that he would not have made the disclosure if he had failed the bar exam because he believed this issue would not have been relevant. Even though he stated that his ultimate disclosure was voluntary, such disclosure was in fact mandatory. His disclosure came after he received notification that he had passed the Bar examination and was required to complete an affirmation of the information contained in his application prior to admission. The applicant, while admitting that he made a mistake, did not show remorse for his actions and stated that he saw no reason for disclosure if he had failed the exam even though he previously admitted that he violated the sworn statement on his application requiring full and immediate disclosure of any charges to the information in his application. Finally, as a member of the New York Bar for 24 years, the Applicant should understand the importance of candor and his responsibility for compliance with his sworn statement.

(Alteration added).

Pursuant to Rule 5(c),10 the Board reviewed the Character Committee’s Report and notified Strzempek that a hearing *110would be held to afford him the opportunity to support his admission. The hearing, based upon the record before the Character Committee, was held on May 2, 2008; the Board adduced the following findings of fact and recommended that Strzempek be admitted:

1. The Applicant was charged with five offenses relating to drinking and driving in Fairfax, Virginia on February 10, 2006. He was convicted of DWI, paid $641.00 in fines and costs, one year probation including Virginia’s alcohol program (VASAP), and had a restricted license and probation for one year to and from work and VASAP.

2. The Board finds that the Applicant revealed this information in his affirmation and has convinced the Board that he had intended to voluntarily come forward with the information. The Applicant convinced the Board that he has no intention for being admitted under what he characterized as “false pretenses.”

3. Regarding his failure to timely amend his Application to include the offenses noted above, Applicant stated that it was never his intention to conceal the arrest, conviction and sentence which resulted from his conduct on February 10, 2006. He rationalized that if he failed to pass the July 2006 exam there would be no need to disclose the arrest and conviction unless he applied to retake the exam. In the event that he passed the exam, he intended to promptly make disclosure to the Board. In fact, he did so voluntarily on November 8, 200[6].

4. The Board finds that the Applicant disclosed the arrest and conviction when applying for employment and was not *111hired for at least [ ]one position because of the arrest and conviction.

5. The Board finds that the arrest, conviction and late disclosure were aberrations and there is no reason to believe the conduct will be repeated.

6. The Board finds that the Applicant was candid and contrite in his testimony and submissions to the Board. The Board panel is unanimously satisfied that the Applicant has met his burden of proving that he currently possesses good moral character and fitness for membership in the Bar of Maryland and recommends his admission.

Pursuant to Rules 5(c) and 5(d),11 a show cause hearing was held before this Court, requiring Strzempek to “show cause why the favorable recommendation of the State Board of Law Examiners should be accepted and why the adverse recommendation of the Character Committee for the Fourth Appellate Circuit should be rejected by the Court.” Counsel for Strzempek appeared before this Court in support of his admission.

II. Standard of Review

The issue before us is whether Strzempek has met his burden of proving that he possesses the present good moral character to practice law in the state of Maryland. In re Application of Stern, 403 Md. 615, 629, 943 A.2d 1247, 1255 (2008); In re Application of Brown, 392 Md. 44, 54, 895 A.2d *1121050, 1055 (2006); In re Application of Hyland, 389 Md. 521, 535, 663 A.2d 1309, 1316 (1995); Rule 5(a). Good moral character is denoted by “those qualities of truth-speaking, of a high sense of honor, of granite discretion, of the strictest observance of fiduciary responsibility.” Application of Stem, 403 Md. at 629, 943 A.2d at 1255; Application of Brown, 392 Md. at 54, 895 A.2d at 1055-56; Application of Hyland, 339 Md. at 534, 663 A.2d at 1315. Furthermore, “it is a given that good moral character includes truthfulness and candor, and absolute candor is a requisite of admission to the Maryland Bar.” Application of Stem, 403 Md. at 634, 943 A.2d at 1258; Application of Brown, 392 Md. at 58, 895 A.2d at 1058 (emphasis added).

The Board’s conclusions regarding an applicant’s moral character and its recommendations concerning admission to the Bar are entitled to great weight. See Application of Stern, 403 Md. at 629, 943 A.2d at 1255; Application of Hyland, 339 Md. at 536, 663 A.2d at 1316; In re Application of Charles M., 313 Md. 168, 178-80, 545 A.2d 7, 12 (1988); In re Application of K.B., 291 Md. 170, 177, 434 A.2d 541, 544 (1981). To properly exercise our responsibility, however, we make our own independent evaluation of the applicant’s present moral character based upon testimony and evidence submitted before the Character Committee and the Board. Application of Stern, 403 Md. at 630, 943 A.2d at 1255; Application of Brown, 392 Md. at 55, 895 A.2d at 1056; Application of Hyland, 339 Md. at 536, 663 A.2d at 1316; Application of Charles M., 313 Md. at 178-80, 545 A.2d at 12; Application of K.B., 291 Md. at 177, 434 A.2d at 544; In re Application of Allan S., 282 Md. 683, 690-91, 387 A.2d 271, 276 (1978).

III. Discussion

Throughout these proceedings, Strzempek has admitted that his failure to immediately and fully disclose his arrest, convictions, jail sentence, suspended driver’s license and probation after his original application was not in compliance with Question 19, which required applicants “to ensure that [their] *113responses are accurate and current at all times until [they are] formally admitted,” because he failed to immediately supplement Question 11(a), which asked for “a complete record of all criminal proceedings (including traffic citations, arrests, and summonses),” and Question 17, which asked about any unfavorable incidents that might bear on the applicant’s character or fitness to practice law. Strzempek asserts, however, that despite his choice not to adhere to the continuing disclosure requirement of Question 19, he, nevertheless, should be admitted to the Bar, because of the mitigatory nature both of his eventual voluntary disclosure and of his purported lack of intent to permanently conceal. In making this argument, he distinguishes his action from the conduct of prior applicants, who have been denied admission.

The Character Committee disagreed with Strzempek about the voluntary nature of the disclosure and the effect of his purported intent to eventually disclose and recommended that he be denied admission. The Board, on the other hand, agreed with Strzempek regarding the mitigatory effect of the voluntary disclosure and of his purported intent not to conceal and recommended admission. Upon an independent review of the record, we disagree with the Board and agree with the Character Committee, because Strzempek has failed to meet the burden of proving that he possesses the present moral character and fitness to warrant admission to the Maryland Bar. In so doing, we emphasize that disclosure on the Bar application and immediate and full supplementation after an incident warranting exposition is mandatory, not voluntary. It is not the choice of a candidate for admission whether to disclose and under what conditions.

Question 19 on the Bar Application clearly emphasizes the requisites of immediate as well as full disclosure. The Rule governing the purpose of the Character Committee interview, which charges its attorney members with “verifying] the facts stated in the questionnaire ... and mak[ing] any further investigation ... necessary or desirable,” also is dependent upon immediate and full disclosure by the applicant, for *114otherwise, the process of investigation is stymied. The Affirmation Form, furthermore, which requires an applicant to affirm that the original application remains current, repeats this mantra of mandatory disclosure. In our recent cases involving bar admission, especially, Application of Stern, 403 Md. at 634, 943 A.2d at 1258, and Application of Brown, 392 Md. at 58, 895 A.2d at 1058, we also have emphasized that, “it is a given that good moral character includes truthfulness and candor, and absolute candor is a requisite of admission to the Maryland Bar.” (Emphasis added).

Strzempek was required to disclose his arrest in February of 2006, and his conviction and sentencing in April of 2006, but he failed to do so “promptly upon the occurrence of each event.” He also was obliged to disclose the same information in his Character Committee interview, which occurred only nine days after his release from jail in April of 2006, but he failed to do so. Strzempek also failed to disclose any of the adverse information for the entirety of the period from February until November of 2006, when he had been advised that he had passed the Bar.

Strzempek attempts to mitigate the adverse effect of his lack of candor by asserting that he did not intend to permanently conceal his arrest and convictions; although he admits that he was aware of his obligation to candidly, accurately and currently disclose. He relies on his choice not to disclose as a mitigator. His choice not to disclose in the face of these known obligations, however, impinges upon his character and fitness to practice law, irrespective of any purported ultimate intent.

Strzempek’s failure to disclose, furthermore, is aggravated by the fact that only nine days after being released from prison, he failed to advise the Character Committee representative, orally or in writing, about his arrest, convictions, jail sentence and suspended driver’s licence or probation. While Strzempek admitted that he was aware of his obligation to disclose at that time, he again chose not to disclose but to conceal. His lack of candor clearly frustrated the intent, as *115well as the purpose of the Character interview, upon which we rely for assessment of good character.

Strzempek also attempts to minimize his behavior by distinguishing his conduct from that of the applicants in Application of Stern, 403 Md. at 615, 943 A.2d at 1247 and Application of Brown, 392 Md. at 44, 895 A.2d at 1050. In Application of Stern, 403 Md. at 636, 943 A.2d at 1259, we denied admission to an applicant who had engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a 15 year-old girl and who had a litany of unpaid - debts, many of which he failed to disclose both on his law school and bar applications. In Application of Brown, 392 Md. at 60, 895 A.2d at 1059, we denied admission to an applicant when he had failed to disclose a bank fraud conviction on his law school application, modified a resume produced to the Board to conceal time spent in prison, and failed to pay restitution.

Nevertheless, because we make an independent review of the record, we always will be confronted with behavior that is more or less egregious than in other cases related to the admission of candidates to the Bar. Whether Strzempek thinks his conduct was egregious is of no moment, because the gravamen of each of our recent cases, is that “absolute candor is a requisite of admission to the Maryland Bar.” Application of Stern, 403 Md. at 634, 943 A.2d at 1258, Application of Brown, 392 Md. at 58, 895 A.2d at 1058 (emphasis added).

Strzempek failed to disclose immediately and fully, the existence, initially in February, of his arrest and then, ultimately, of his convictions in April of 2006, after pleading guilty to various serious traffic offenses. While Strzempek sees that as a choice, we see it as a reflection of his lack of candor, especially considering his experience in the legal profession, having been admitted to the Bar in New York for over twenty years. If after that long of a period of time, Strzempek still failed to recognize the difference between his choice to disclose and our mandated reporting, we see his quandary not as mitigatory but as aggravating. For these reasons, and because of the fact that Strzempek bears the burden to prove his *116present good moral character, our own independent review of the record leads us to deny Strzempek’s application for admission to the Bar of Maryland.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BELL, C.J., and MURPHY, J., dissent.