In the Matter of John Hoffman Moran

SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT IN THE MATTER OF JOHN HOFFMAN MORAN Docket: SJC-13591 Dates: January 31, 2025 Present: County: Keywords: Attorney at Law, Admission to practice. Board of Bar Examiners. Supreme Judicial Court, Membership in the bar. The Board of Bar Examiners (board) reported that John Hoffman Moran was not qualified for admission to the Massachusetts bar because of certain character and fitness concerns. Moran petitioned a single justice of this court for review. The single justice denied Moran's petition and dismissed his application for admission to the bar. Moran appeals, and we affirm. 1. Background. Moran graduated from an accredited law school in 2013 and first filed an application for admission to the Massachusetts bar in 2018. He did not pass the written examination in July 2018, but he reapplied and subsequently passed the examination in February 2019.[1] After reviewing Moran's application for admission, the board determined that an inquiry into Moran's character and fitness to practice law in Massachusetts was necessary and appointed special counsel to conduct an investigation. After receiving the special counsel's investigative report, the board conducted a formal evidentiary hearing to determine whether Moran is "of good moral character and sufficient acquirements and qualifications" to warrant his admission to the bar. G. L. c. 221, § 37. See S.J.C. Rule 3:01, § 5.1, as appearing in 478 Mass. 1301 (2018); Rule V.2 of the Rules of the Board of Bar Examiners (2021). The board concluded that Moran failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that he possessed the requisite character and fitness, and it submitted a report of nonqualification to this court. The single justice agreed with the board's conclusions and dismissed Moran's application for admission to the bar. 2. Facts. Moran has a history of alcohol-related legal issues spanning the years 1997 to 2014, including seven arrests and three convictions for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (OUI) or a related offense. Some of these incidents occurred while Moran was attending law school and led to a suspension and expulsion from school, although he did ultimately obtain his law degree. Moran was also arrested three other times for nonalcohol related incidents. In its report of nonqualification, the board noted that Moran has made positive "purposeful life changes" and has had no arrests since 2014. The board also specifically stated that it "did not give weight to the facts or circumstances underlying . . . Moran's alcohol-related arrests or convictions in its determination relative to [his application for admission to the bar]." a. Commercial pilot certificate. The board did, however, have concerns with Moran's OUI arrests and convictions as they were relevant to Moran's commercial pilot certificate. In particular, the board was concerned with Moran's failure to inform the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regarding the OUI charges and convictions. Moran was initially issued a pilot's certificate in 1993. The certificate was inactive from the late 1990s until April 2021, when Moran obtained a new certificate. When the board first inquired of Moran whether he was required to disclose his arrests or convictions for OUI, and any related suspension of his driver's license, to the FAA, Moran responded that he did not know what his obligations were, that he would find out, and that he would provide that information to the board. Moran subsequently submitted a letter to the board indicating that inactive pilots are not required to disclose OUI arrests and convictions to the FAA. More specifically, Moran indicated that he had spoken with a particular administrative investigator at the FAA and that the investigator had told Moran that there was no such requirement. This was, as it turns out, untrue. Moran later suggested that he had misunderstood what he had been told by the FAA and acknowledged that his rendition of whom he spoke with at the FAA and what they had told him were inaccurate. Moran subsequently reported the required information to the FAA but then failed to cooperate with the FAA's investigation by demanding that the FAA itself obtain the relevant records relating to his criminal history rather than providing them himself. Eventually, Moran accepted a 120-day suspension proposed by the FAA and was able to obtain a new pilot's certificate in April 2021. b. Tax filings. The board was also concerned with Moran's conduct in relation to certain tax filings. When the board initially inquired whether Moran had filed income taxes for the years 2016, 2017, and 2018, both individually and on behalf of the company that Moran owned, he was unable to answer the question. During the course of the special counsel's investigation, Moran gave conflicting answers regarding whether he had filed his taxes, and although he eventually provided draft copies of his returns for the indicated years, he stated that the returns for two of the years needed to be revised because they were missing certain income. He also indicated that he would update special counsel regarding those revisions, but never followed up with that information. At the formal hearing following the special counsel's investigation, Moran testified as to some confusion on his part regarding the filing of individual and corporate taxes. Although he did eventually look into the matter and ensured that his taxes were properly filed, he did not do so until prompted by the special counsel's investigation. Additionally, there was some indication that not all of the information included in his tax returns was accurate. 3. Discussion. While we give "deference . . . to the decision of the board, this court retains ultimate authority to decide a person's fitness to practice law in the Commonwealth." Strigler v. Board of Bar Examiners, 448 Mass. 1027, 1029 (2007), quoting Matter of Prager, 422 Mass. 86, 91 (1996). That determination requires that we consider the public interest, and "[a]ny significant doubts about an applicant's character should be resolved in favor of protecting the public by denying admission to the applicant." Britton v. Board of Bar Examiners, 471 Mass. 1015, 1017 (2015), quoting Matter of an Application for Admission to the Bar of the Commonwealth, 444 Mass. 393, 397 (2005). Moreover, "[c]andor with the board is essential. 'It is the obligation of an applicant to assure the members of the board and, ultimately, this court that he or she possesses the necessary qualifications to practice law in the Commonwealth. Such a showing requires a full and exhaustive disclosure of prior wrongdoing, including all relevant circumstances surrounding the conduct, both militating and mitigating, and official documentation where appropriate.'" Strigler, supra, quoting Matter of Prager, supra at 100. Rule V of the Rules of the Board of Bar Examiners sets forth a number of attributes that the board "considers . . . to be essential for all petitioners seeking admission to the Massachusetts bar." Rule V.1 of the Rules of the Board of Bar Examiners (2021). Those attributes include, among other things, "[t]he ability to conduct oneself with respect for and in accordance with the law." Id. In its report of nonqualification, the board stated that it had determined that Moran had failed to demonstrate that he has the ability to conduct himself with respect for and in accordance with the law. We agree. Although Moran was forthcoming in many respects in his petition for admission to the bar, providing, for example, the required information regarding his OUI arrests and convictions, he has demonstrated both a lack of candor and an inability to accept responsibility for some of his actions. For example, the special counsel noted that during the first investigative interview, in connection with the OUI issues, Moran initially "maintain[ed] some level of denial regarding being over the legal limit." In Moran's view, he should not have been arrested because he was not intoxicated. Later in the investigation, Moran "admitted that he drank to excess in connection with . . . the arrests." Special counsel also noted difficulty in confirming the nature or extent of Moran's work history and, as stated above, never received from Moran all the tax filing information that special counsel had requested. Moran has acknowledged that he has not always accepted responsibility for his actions, and we recognize his efforts to demonstrate rehabilitation in this area. He also, to some extent, acknowledged mistakes, both to special counsel and at the hearing before the board, but he nevertheless continues to place some of the blame for his mistakes or wrongdoing on others. In other words, he continues to fail to accept responsibility for his actions. For example, Moran appears to have claimed certain deductions on his tax returns with respect business expenses. Moran continues to claim that he took the deductions because he was directed to do so by his accountant -- that is, he blames his accountant –‑ and asserts that the deductions were not improper. However, he did not provide any legal or factual basis for so claiming. He has also attributed his failure to comply with his obligation to report the OUI arrests and convictions to the FAA as an "innocent lapse of memory" and a "misunderstanding." Even if he was unaware, initially, of the requirement to report the OUI issues, Moran was less than straightforward with the board about his conversations with the FAA on that subject and gave the board information that was demonstrably false. Moreover, he only looked into the FAA matter because he was prompted to do so by the board. There is no indication that he would have sought to comply with the reporting obligation if not for the board's investigation. Overall, Moran has not established "by clear and convincing evidence his . . . current good character and fitness to be admitted to the practice of law." Rule V.2.2 of the Rules of the Board of Bar Examiners. He has not, in short, demonstrated that he has the ability to conduct himself with respect for and in accordance with the law. As such, we are not "confident that allowing [Moran] to practice law would not be detrimental to the public interest." Porter v. Board of Bar Examiners, 489 Mass. 1012, 1015 (2022), quoting Matter of an Application for Admission to the Bar of the Commonwealth, 444 Mass. at 411. 4. Conclusion. The judgment of the single justice denying Moran's petition for review of the board's determination of nonqualification and dismissing his application for admission to the bar is affirmed. So ordered. The case was submitted on briefs. John H. Moran, pro se. Elizabeth J. Storms for Board of Bar Examiners. footnotes [1] The petitioner resides in Florida. He has not applied for admission to the Florida bar, and it is unclear from the record whether he has applied for admission to any jurisdiction other than Massachusetts.