John Andrew Payne submitted an application for a certificate of fitness to practice law in June 2009. His application revealed that he had an extensive criminal background with multiple felonies and other crimes from 1975 to 1983 and six DUI convictions and one arrest from 1981 to 1995. On December 10, 2009, Payne had an informal conference with the Board to Determine Fitness of Bar Applicants in order to discuss particular areas of concern. After the informal conference, the Board issued a tentative order of denial of certification citing lack of rehabilitation and candor and, at the request of Payne, issued specifications. On September 13 and 14, 2010, a formal hearing was held before hearing officer Thomas M. Cole, who subsequently issued his recommendation to the Board. He found that while Payne was less than candid regarding disclosure of his criminal history, he met his burden of showing rehabilitation and should be certified as fit conditioned upon his continued participation in Narcotics and Alcoholics Anonymous plus periodic monitoring. However, the Board denied certification to Payne in a final decision issued on December 14, 2010, finding that he did not meet his burden. Payne appeals from the Board’s denial of his application for fitness. 1. “Throughout the application process, the burden rests upon the applicant to establish his or her fitness to practice law. Cit.” In the Matter of Lee , 275 Ga. 763, 764 571 SE2d 720 2002. Furthermore, where an applicant for admission to the bar has a criminal record, his or her burden of establishing present good moral character takes on the added weight of proving full and complete rehabilitation subsequent to conviction, and it is only fitting that proof of rehabilitation be by clear and convincing evidence. Cits. Any effort made before the Board to evade full disclosure of all pertinent information concerning the past may be considered by the Board as evidence of lack of full and complete rehabilitation. Cit. In re Cason , 249 Ga. 806, 808 294 SE2d 520 1982. “Generally, if there is any evidence to support the Board’s decision regarding the fitness of a Bar applicant, it will be upheld. Cit.” In the Matter of Spence , 275 Ga. 202, 204 563 SE2d 129 2002.
The evidence shows that Payne’s criminal history includes numerous arrests, felony and misdemeanor convictions, and six DUI convictions, and spans almost thirty years, extending not just from his youth but into his mid-forties. The last illegal act cited in the application occurred only seven years prior to the formal hearing. Moreover, the record reveals that Payne was not always completely candid regarding his criminal history. In response to a request on his law school application for a list of any previous criminal conduct, Payne provided only a short summary of his criminal past. After a request for more information by the law school, Payne submitted information regarding his multiple property crime and theft convictions in 1976 but failed to list his extensive criminal conduct prior to 1976 and after 1981. The law school again requested more information, and Payne submitted another supplemental response detailing more of his criminal history but again left off many of his arrests, charges, and convictions. He disclosed one DUI conviction from 1995, but failed to disclose the five other DUI convictions and one other DUI arrest that was nolle prossed. In fact, Payne still was amending his law school application in the Spring of 2010, after the filing of his fitness application. The question then becomes “one of whether these errors and omissions were wilful in order to conceal the whole truth or merely were inadvertent.” In re Beasley , 243 Ga. 134, 135 2 252 SE2d 615 1979. Payne admitted to the Board that he remembered at least some of these omitted criminal incidents, including most of the later DUIs, at the time he was completing his law school application, and thus the omissions were not simply inadvertent. Additionally, he gave no explanation for their omission except to concede that they were improperly withheld. His admission that he consciously omitted parts of his criminal history, his lack of explanation for the omissions, the substantial number of errors and omissions, and the criminal nature of these incidents support the Board’s conclusion that Payne wilfully concealed the whole truth. See In re Beasley , supra; In re Cook , 284 Ga. 575 668 SE2d 665 2008.
