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.