High Court Asked to Void Bar’s Action : Lead Foot Puts Brakes on Law Career

Ralph Rogari admits that he used to have a heavy foot, especially when he pulled his Jensen-Healey convertible onto a wide-open freeway.

After moving to Southern California in 1980, Rogari accumulated 18 traffic citations--a total of 31 violations of the state Motor Vehicle Code--in a period of just 30 months.

Nearly all of the citations were related to speeding, and for half of them, Rogari was cited again for failing to appear in court on time. Once in 1982, he was cited for driving while intoxicated, a charge that later was reduced to reckless driving but landed him several nights in jail nonetheless.

“I had always wanted to come to California, and here I was living in Los Angeles,” said Rogari, 27, who grew up in Pennsylvania, graduated from the University of Notre Dame and now lives in Hermosa Beach. “I was very immature. I was here to have a good time, and I did tend to drive fast.”

But Rogari, who moved to Southern California to attend law school at Loyola Marymount University, said his driving record--no matter how poor--has nothing to do with his ability to practice law.

The committee of Bar examiners for the State Bar of California disagrees.

The examining committee has denied Rogari admission to the Bar on the grounds that he lacks “good moral character,” because “the pattern of violations and failures to appear is contrary to justice, honesty, modesty and good morals,” according to a report prepared by a committee hearing officer.

Rogari graduated from Loyola in 1983 and passed the Bar exam a year later, but he has yet to argue in a courtroom. For the last 16 months, Rogari has been working as a law clerk while he fights the panel’s decision--a battle that has moved from the committee’s hearing offices to the state Supreme Court.

Three weeks ago, the Supreme Court refused to hear Rogari’s case, and this week, in a last-ditch effort, Rogari is appealing to the court to reconsider its decision.

“I have paid my debt to society in many ways,” said Rogari, who has sold his Jensen-Healey sports car and paid an estimated $2,500 in fines and fees for traffic violations.

At one point during his 2 1/2-year speeding spree, Rogari lost his license and his insurance coverage, both of which he said he has since regained, and was placed on probation for two years after pleading guilty to reckless driving. His probation ended in 1985.

“I recognize the fact that my conduct is not to be condoned, but it is part of my past,” said Rogari, who now drives a company car or one of his girlfriend’s cars. “I don’t think moral character has anything to do with how a person drives a car.”

From the examining committee’s vantage point, the case against Rogari is simple and straightforward. Rogari’s driving record--especially the nine citations for failure to appear in court--shows a “lack of respect for the judicial process” and constitutes “sufficient evidence of lack of good moral character,” according to a memorandum filed with the Supreme Court by attorneys for the State Bar. The court documents also show that the examining panel believed Rogari “lacked candor” in answering some questions the panel posed during its investigation.

Testing Period

Under State Bar rules, the examining committee can refuse to admit to practice applicants who are deemed to lack good moral character. Gloria A. Zank, moral character counsel for the Bar, said the subcommittee on moral character recommends that admission be denied for about 30 of the estimated 6,000 applicants who take the Bar exam each testing period.

Dennis S. Kahane, chairman of the examining committee, would not comment specifically on the Rogari case, but said although Bar officials routinely examine applicants’ backgrounds, it is very rare for an aspiring attorney to be denied the right to practice law because of a poor driving record.

“Obviously a person who has gone through a red light once or was speeding one time does not raise an issue for us,” Kahane said, “while a person who has a long string of driving-under-the-influence or failure to appear in court does raise an issue. Failure to appear, which may seem unimportant to the person, tends to show a general disrespect for the court.”

Rogari, who works as a clerk for a Torrance law firm, is the first to admit that he had “a bad attitude” about traffic violations when he first moved here.

Filed Petition

His petition filed with the Supreme Court said his failures to appear were due to “carelessness, inattentiveness, lack of an adequate personal record-keeping system, work and school schedules and transitory living arrangements” and emphasizes that he intended to appear in court and, in fact, did appear on time for the remaining nine citations.

During the last three years, Rogari said he has received just three traffic citations, one of which was dismissed in court, and has learned his lesson about driving fast. The court documents include testimony from attorneys for whom he has worked, all saying that Rogari is a dedicated worker and of good moral character.

However, the documents also include comments by Richard D. Burstein, an attorney who presided over Rogari’s hearing last April for the Bar, that Rogari has, in fact, not learned the error of his ways.

Burstein criticized Rogari for making a distinction between the private life of an attorney and his professional conduct.

“The notion that an attorney can compartmentalize his conduct seems likely to lead to blindness to the importance of the conduct of a lawyer,” Burstein wrote.

If the Supreme Court denies his petition for reconsideration, Rogari can reapply to the Bar in two years--an application that would be considered without prejudice, officials from the examining committee said.