A University of Kentucky law school graduate who finished in the top third of his class is asking the state Supreme Court to reconsider its decision barring him from taking the bar exam because he’s on the state sex-offender registry.
The court ruled unanimously in December that Guy Padraic Hamilton-Smith can’t apply to take the test until he goes off the registry in 2027 — when he’s 44 years old — because he is listed for possession of child pornography, which the court described as one the most “iniquitous of crimes.”
The justices said it would put the “character and integrity of the bar itself” at risk if Hamilton-Smith relapsed — or even if a client discovered he’s on the registry.
Supporters of Hamilton-Smith, who graduated in 2011 after competing on UK’s prestigious national moot-court team, said he’s done everything possible to rehabilitate himself since his conviction four years earlier on one count of possession of possessing materials portraying a sexual performance by a minor.
Therapist Susan Smith, who treated Hamilton-Smith and has worked with other sex offenders and victims for 22 years, told the the Kentucky Office of Bar Admissions Character and Fitness Committee that Hamilton-Smith poses no threat to anyone and would make a “wonderful lawyer.”
Yvette Hourigan, director of the Kentucky Bar Association’s lawyer-assistance program testified said Hamilton-Smith, who works as a $16-an-hour clerk for Lexington law firm, has been “completely compliant, completely honest, completely forthcoming and completely credible.”
And UK law professor Robert Lawson, its distinguished former dean who taught several of his classes, told the committee that Hamilton-Smith made “the most honest, open disclosure” of his crime “that I’ve ever heard from anybody.” Lawson said he’s fit to be a lawyer.
The case, the first of its kind in Kentucky, pits the value of redemption against the potential embarrassment of the bar and Supreme Court, Lawson said.
He also said that if an applicant is automatically ineligible because of their listing on the sex-offender registry for a child pornography offense, the Character and Fitness committee should have had a written rule saying that so Hamilton-Smith “wouldn’t have spent three years and thousands of dollars getting a legal education.”
“That is why this is unfair,” Lawson said.
The chairman of the Character and Fitness Committee, Louisville lawyer Grant Helman, didn’t respond to a request for comment. But in court papers, the panel says that a would-be lawyer should be excluded from practice based on their mere presence on the registry for any crime.
“There is nothing ‘mere’ about it,” said its lawyer, Elizabeth Feamster.
The committee also noted that while Hamilton-Smith disclosed his conviction when he applied to UK, he initially omitted that he was on the registry. And it said that he testified he wouldn’t disclose his conviction and status to prospective client unless asked about it.
The case, which was first reported by the Associated Press, began in 2007, when Hamilton-Smith was in graduate school and his girlfriend found sexual images of children on his computer and reported him to police.
Hamilton-Smith was charged with three counts of possession and pleaded guilty to one count, for which he was sentenced to five years probation and placed on the registry for 20 years.
He admitted later that he was a sex addict and had been since he was 16. He said he downloaded so much porn of all types he had to delete some from his computer so he could add more, and that he probably had more than the three images of child porn with which he was charged.
In an interview, he said getting caught “probably saved my life” and that he decided to apply to law school because he had seen the “power of law to help people.”
He was rejected by the University of Louisville and Northern Kentucky University but accepted at UK, where he continued sex-offender counseling and signed a contract to be monitored by the KBA’s lawyer-assistance program.
He also amended his application — as allowed by UK — to disclose that he was a sex offender.
In an interview, he said he knew he might never be admitted to practice but decided to take a chance.
But the Character and Fitness Committee, the gatekeeper for the bar, twice rejected his application to take the exam, citing a number of factors.
It said he admitted that he had relapsed and viewed legal adult pornography, and that he couldn’t promise he wouldn’t relapse again. It said he disclosed his offender status to UK after a committee member lectured first-year law students about the importance of candor. And it said he’d been treated for depression and once came close to killing himself.
But the “elephant in the corner,” the committee acknowledged, was that his name is on the registry.
“An individual whose name is on the sex-offender registry cannot demonstrate the required character and fitness to be admitted,” it said.
In an unsigned opinion Dec. 19, the Supreme Court rejected the committee’s findings that being on the registry automatically disqualifies a candidate for the bar, saying every case should be examined individually.
But the court said that being listed for possession of child pornography — which in this case included depictions of the sexual exploitation and rape of children — did justify a disqualification.
“The purpose of character and fitness screening is to protect the public trust and safeguard the administration of justice,” the court said.
If Hamilton-Smith received a seal of approval, the justices said, “It would significantly mislead the public into believing that we vouch for his good character.”
Moreover, added the court, if a client hired him and later found out he was listed, it would justifiably lead him to question the character of all practicing lawyers.
Hamilton-Smith, who is now 30, blames only himself for his predicament. “I can’t claim innocence or mistake,” he said.
His lawyer, White, has filed a motion asking the Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling — to let his client take the exam sooner, perhaps in two to five years. White says the penalty is “overkill” and that the court needs to look more specifically at Hamilton-Smith’s crime and rehabilitation.
“He has vigorously and responsibly sought and found recovery,” White said.
Opposing the motion, the committee says the court got it right the first time.
Shelly Stow, a spokeswoman for Cambridge, Mass.-based Reform of Sex Offender Laws, which champions both public safety and the dignity of ex-offenders, said: “The purpose of punishment is to bring about rehabilitation, and in this case, it worked.”
She said Hamilton-Smith has tried to be a good citizen, so for the court to say that is not enough sends the wrong message.
“Do we want to make it as difficult as possible for an offender to re-assimilate,” she asked, “or or do we want to help him?” ..Source.. by Andrew Wolfson
No comments:
Post a Comment