Character and fitness. Those words are enough to make any law student quiver in her boots. Why? Because obtaining a license to practice law isn't just about graduating from law school. It isn't just about passing a ridiculously hard two- or three-day test. It's also about demonstrating to the bar officials in your state that you have the “character and fitness” to practice law.

In fact, on the bar application of every state, applicants are required to list references who can attest to their character and fitness. Once those references are supplied, bar officials reportedly then ask them for additional names that weren't offered by the applicant. In lots of states, applicants are fingerprinted, their criminal and academic histories are scrutinized and even their therapists' records are subject to perusal.

And here's what's interesting about character and fitness investigations. By the time a student makes it to law school, she's at least 22 years old. She's matured since, say, her high school days. But she is still required to report on her bar application any brushes she has had with the law—in some states, even speeding tickets. If she neglects to include some offense, the bar considers the omission a lie that is worse than the underlying offense. In fact, admitting her wrongs is seen as evidence that an applicant has taken responsibility—and thereby has the requisite character and fitness.

Which brings us to Brett Kavanaugh. The question the public seems to be asking is whether, if Kavanaugh did indeed sexually assault a young woman when he was 17, that disqualifies him from confirmation to the United States Supreme Court. To lawyers, that question is odd, to say the least. If Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted a young woman when he was in high school, he would have had difficulty being admitted to the bar, much less sitting on the highest court in the land.

Now, remember, bar officials are forgiving. When young people commit offenses—and, as a law professor, I see lots of students admitted to law school who have minor drug or theft offenses on their records—they are just that, young. If enough time has passed since the offense and officials can see that the young person has learned from the experience, taken responsibility and matured, she is likely to be admitted to the bar, albeit after a live hearing.

But to get to that hearing, the young lawyer-to-be must take responsibility.

We do not know whether Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Christine Basey Ford. We might draw inferences from the fact that the university professor was willing to put herself and her family under public scrutiny, but that's not evidence. Republicans in the Senate are making two arguments: first, that an unproved allegation should not interfere with Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation and, second, that even if he committed sexual assault in high school, the alleged act took place so long ago that it shouldn't be a disqualifying factor.

Any lawyer worth her salt should know that the second assertion is just not true, at least not for other lawyers like Kavanaugh. That's because ours is a self-regulating profession. We have to depend on each other to be honest, ethical and true. That's also because we represent clients. We need our clients to trust us completely so that we can represent their interests to the best of our abilities. As for Supreme Court justices? For the rule of law to thrive, we really need to be able to trust their honesty, impartiality and pursuit of justice. If a Supreme Court justice committed sexual assault as a teen and then was confirmed to the court? How could women—or men, for that matter—appearing before that court believe that the justice would treat them with integrity?

Lawyers are required to be “of good moral character.” Let us expect nothing less from our Supreme Court justices.

Lisa A. Tucker is an associate professor of law at the Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law.