California Bar Moral Character Application Forum

[jman77]

Can someone kindly let me know what the lookback period is for disclosing traffic infractions? I believe it's 10 years? Truly appreciate it.

[jman77]

Can someone kindly let me know what the lookback period is for disclosing traffic infractions? I believe it's 10 years? Truly appreciate it.

I received a follow-up question asking why I didn't disclose a minor traffic infraction (turning left onto a no-left turn street from the university center) that happened 13 years ago. Traveling internationally, so I don't have access to my application.

By the way, I'm at over 9 months now...

[apprentice2020]

When I called the Bar to check on the status of my application, I got the impression that I hadn't been assigned an analyst or investigator yet. The analyst I did speak to told me to call back when I'd hit 180 days.

I called 30 days before the 180 day mark. I guess you won't know what's going to delay your determination until they contact you.

[Blueplanet]

My moral character was considered as being submitted in Dec 18, received email they have all docs in Feb 19 and received positive assessment last week. All plain sailing no additional questions or queries. I never chased them. Quite frankly, couldn't be bothered to do so.

Congratulations. Did you receive an e-mail, updated on the admission website, or a letter?

I submitted my application when you did and I haven't received a determination yet. No arrests, convictions, credit/debt issues, etc. Hopefully, it comes soon. I just want the MC to be off my plate now even though I'm not taking the bar until February 2020.

Thanks. I received an e-mail from the CA bar which was also available on the website when I logged in. For what its worth I received the confirmation one week before the Feb exam results. I passed in Feb 19. No idea if there is a connection!

[jman77]

Surely someone can confirm whether the lookback period for traffic infractions required to be disclosed is 10 years?

[ReasonablePersonSSC]

Surely someone can confirm whether the lookback period for traffic infractions required to be disclosed is 10 years?

Quoting from section 16 of the printed application:
"In answering the following questions, you must include all such incidents and convictions, no matter how minor the incident. Traffic violations which must be reported under this question include Failure to Appear, Driving Without a License, Driving with a Suspended License, and Reckless Driving, as well as traffic violations that resulted in a misdemeanor or felony conviction."

Hope that helps...

[jman77]

Surely someone can confirm whether the lookback period for traffic infractions required to be disclosed is 10 years?

Quoting from section 16 of the printed application:
"In answering the following questions, you must include all such incidents and convictions, no matter how minor the incident. Traffic violations which must be reported under this question include Failure to Appear, Driving Without a License, Driving with a Suspended License, and Reckless Driving, as well as traffic violations that resulted in a misdemeanor or felony conviction."

Hope that helps...

Thanks, I know that even minor incidents need to be disclosed. However, I seem to remember there being a 10-year lookback period in the question itself (e.g., in the past 10 years, have you ever been...). Did I just imagine that? Again, I do not have access to my printed application as I am currently out of town. It would really be stupid of me not to disclose such a minor infraction, which is why I believe right now that there was a time limit, and the reason I did not disclose was that it was beyond the time limit.

Or it might have been because my traffic violation did not result in any conviction (whether misdemeanor or felony). I'm not so sure now, it's been so long since I submitted my application.

[ReasonablePersonSSC]

Surely someone can confirm whether the lookback period for traffic infractions required to be disclosed is 10 years?

Quoting from section 16 of the printed application:
"In answering the following questions, you must include all such incidents and convictions, no matter how minor the incident. Traffic violations which must be reported under this question include Failure to Appear, Driving Without a License, Driving with a Suspended License, and Reckless Driving, as well as traffic violations that resulted in a misdemeanor or felony conviction."

Hope that helps...

Thanks, I know that even minor incidents need to be disclosed. However, I seem to remember there being a 10-year lookback period in the question itself (e.g., in the past 10 years, have you ever been...). Did I just imagine that? Again, I do not have access to my printed application as I am currently out of town. It would really be stupid of me not to disclose such a minor infraction, which is why I believe right now that there was a time limit, and the reason I did not disclose was that it was beyond the time limit.

Or it might have been because my traffic violation did not result in any conviction (whether misdemeanor or felony). I'm not so sure now, it's been so long since I submitted my application.

I don’t see a look back period mentioned for convictions. If you did not pay the fine timely for the minor infraction, it may have resulted in a misdemeanor on your record.

[jman77]

Surely someone can confirm whether the lookback period for traffic infractions required to be disclosed is 10 years?

Quoting from section 16 of the printed application:
"In answering the following questions, you must include all such incidents and convictions, no matter how minor the incident. Traffic violations which must be reported under this question include Failure to Appear, Driving Without a License, Driving with a Suspended License, and Reckless Driving, as well as traffic violations that resulted in a misdemeanor or felony conviction."

Hope that helps...

Could you include the quote of the actual question(s) itself/themselves? Thanks a lot.

[jman77]

100% certain I paid the fine. I know there was a reason I did not disclose that minor infraction (again, it would be extremely stupid for me to omit such a trivial matter and I don't think I'm extremely stupid) and I'm hoping seeing the actual question(s) jog(s) my memory.

Surely someone can confirm whether the lookback period for traffic infractions required to be disclosed is 10 years?

Quoting from section 16 of the printed application:
"In answering the following questions, you must include all such incidents and convictions, no matter how minor the incident. Traffic violations which must be reported under this question include Failure to Appear, Driving Without a License, Driving with a Suspended License, and Reckless Driving, as well as traffic violations that resulted in a misdemeanor or felony conviction."

Hope that helps...

Thanks, I know that even minor incidents need to be disclosed. However, I seem to remember there being a 10-year lookback period in the question itself (e.g., in the past 10 years, have you ever been...). Did I just imagine that? Again, I do not have access to my printed application as I am currently out of town. It would really be stupid of me not to disclose such a minor infraction, which is why I believe right now that there was a time limit, and the reason I did not disclose was that it was beyond the time limit.

Or it might have been because my traffic violation did not result in any conviction (whether misdemeanor or felony). I'm not so sure now, it's been so long since I submitted my application.

I don’t see a look back period mentioned for convictions. If you did not pay the fine timely for the minor infraction, it may have resulted in a misdemeanor on your record.

[fsefilut]

Just received notice that I passed MC for CA. Wanted to outline my experience here since this thread has been such a great resource for me. Passing MC has always been a fear of mine since I have a couple of issues on my records (one was 14 years ago and the other was 8 years ago).

Timeline:
Mid-September: Sent in paper application overnight
October: received notice I only submitted 1 of 2 finger print cards and would need to submit a second one
11/18/18: received notice that the initial processing was complete, minimum of 180 days would be required to complete the process
05/16/19 (1 day before the 180 day mark): initial review was complete, however, the analyst wanted proof that I communicated the above issues to my law school on my application
05/20/19: electronically sent in my law school application with the required disclosures
05/22/19: received positive MC determination

I hope this helps anyone that is waiting for their determination and needs a bit of encouragement around the process. I know I was nervous about possibly being called in for an interview or even being denied. Luckily, everything worked out and now I just need to focus on this bar prep. Good luck everyone!

[InterAlia1961]

Can someone kindly let me know what the lookback period is for disclosing traffic infractions? I believe it's 10 years? Truly appreciate it.

Straight-up. Whatever it is you're trying not to disclose, think twice. Report everything. If you had a traffic infraction and failed to appear, you're going to have to answer for it. FTA is frowned on. It shows disrespect for the law. If you failed to pay a citation and had a bench warrant issued that you never addressed, you're going to have to answer for it. If the Committee thinks you're being evasive, it's going to be a candor issue. Just answer the question.

[jman77]

Can someone kindly let me know what the lookback period is for disclosing traffic infractions? I believe it's 10 years? Truly appreciate it.

Straight-up. Whatever it is you're trying not to disclose, think twice. Report everything. If you had a traffic infraction and failed to appear, you're going to have to answer for it. FTA is frowned on. It shows disrespect for the law. If you failed to pay a citation and had a bench warrant issued that you never addressed, you're going to have to answer for it. If the Committee thinks you're being evasive, it's going to be a candor issue. Just answer the question.

Thanks, but I know that I answered the question(s) truthfully and was not "trying not to disclose" anything. Why on earth would I hide a ticket I got 13 years ago for making a left turn while exiting the university center/plaza and for which I had paid the fine?

I do know I answered the question(s) truthfully and there was a reason (based on how the questions were asked) I did not believe it was necessary to disclose that ticket (either a lookback period or because it was beyond the scope of the question). All I really needed was for someone to confirm what the question(s) said (or quote the questions here).

In any event, I may just have to wait until I get back to the US so I can look at my application. Thanks to ReasonablePesonSSC for posting some of the information I needed.

[Moabit]

I think there is no need to induce anxiety in Jman77. (S)he stated that the follow-up question was "'asking why I didn't disclose a minor traffic infraction (turning left onto a no-left turn street from the university center) that happened 13 years ago." Jman77 was not asked why he Failed to Appear, so that's just making things up.

The instructions are pretty clear (see the earlier quote). Only those traffic violations must be reported that are 1) Failure to Appear, 2) Driving Without a License, 3) Driving with a Suspended License, 4) Reckless Driving, 5) any other traffic violations that resulted in at least a misdemeanor conviction.
An "improper turn" infraction is none of them, and thus Jman77 did not have to disclose it. It looks to me that "because the application did not ask me to disclose it" is the proper response to the curious investigator.

[jman77]

Thank you. I honestly thought it was a simple request. I know for sure there was a valid reason I didn’t disclose that traffic ticket and I wasn’t trying to hide it. I just wanted to give s response to the investigator without having to wait until I got back to the US to check my application as that would result in more delays.

So I just wanted to see what the questions asked so I could then refresh my memory and provide the appropriate response to the investigator. For some reason I initially thought there was a 10-year lookback period and the ticket was outside such period. But it looks like it was something else (maybe the text that was quoted a few posts up).

I think there is no need to induce anxiety in Jman77. (S)he stated that the follow-up question was "'asking why I didn't disclose a minor traffic infraction (turning left onto a no-left turn street from the university center) that happened 13 years ago." Jman77 was not asked why he Failed to Appear, so that's just making things up.

The instructions are pretty clear (see the earlier quote). Only those traffic violations must be reported that are 1) Failure to Appear, 2) Driving Without a License, 3) Driving with a Suspended License, 4) Reckless Driving, 5) any other traffic violations that resulted in at least a misdemeanor conviction.
An "improper turn" infraction is none of them, and thus Jman77 did not have to disclose it. It looks to me that "because the application did not ask me to disclose it" is the proper response to the curious investigator.

[InterAlia1961]

I think there is no need to induce anxiety in Jman77. (S)he stated that the follow-up question was "'asking why I didn't disclose a minor traffic infraction (turning left onto a no-left turn street from the university center) that happened 13 years ago." Jman77 was not asked why he Failed to Appear, so that's just making things up.

The instructions are pretty clear (see the earlier quote). Only those traffic violations must be reported that are 1) Failure to Appear, 2) Driving Without a License, 3) Driving with a Suspended License, 4) Reckless Driving, 5) any other traffic violations that resulted in at least a misdemeanor conviction.
An "improper turn" infraction is none of them, and thus Jman77 did not have to disclose it. It looks to me that "because the application did not ask me to disclose it" is the proper response to the curious investigator.

They found it. Jman77 didn't disclose it. The investigator thought it should've been disclosed or they wouldn't have questioned him/her about it. I've been dealing with the State Bar for five years now. I know a red flag when I see it. Jman77 has to get back to the US to check his application. Why? It's 2019. You can check the application online from anywhere. Jman77 applied online, unless he/she was previously denied. Then, and only then, did he/she have to file a paper application. Something's off here.

[jman77]

Dude, just quit. You can’t access your application online I’m e you’ve submitted it. The button to access the online application is grayed out and there is text saying you can no longer access it because it’s been submitted. If you want to see a copy of your application you have to fill out and send them a request and pay $25, then they’ll send it to you.

Please stop trying to sound like you know everything because you clearly don’t. Please stop responding if your responses are not going to be responsive to what I’m requesting. I have no worries whatsoever about this issue.

If anyone else is kind enough to post the actual questions, I’d truly appreciate it.

I think there is no need to induce anxiety in Jman77. (S)he stated that the follow-up question was "'asking why I didn't disclose a minor traffic infraction (turning left onto a no-left turn street from the university center) that happened 13 years ago." Jman77 was not asked why he Failed to Appear, so that's just making things up.

The instructions are pretty clear (see the earlier quote). Only those traffic violations must be reported that are 1) Failure to Appear, 2) Driving Without a License, 3) Driving with a Suspended License, 4) Reckless Driving, 5) any other traffic violations that resulted in at least a misdemeanor conviction.
An "improper turn" infraction is none of them, and thus Jman77 did not have to disclose it. It looks to me that "because the application did not ask me to disclose it" is the proper response to the curious investigator.

They found it. Jman77 didn't disclose it. The investigator thought it should've been disclosed or they wouldn't have questioned him/her about it. I've been dealing with the State Bar for five years now. I know a red flag when I see it. Jman77 has to get back to the US to check his application. Why? It's 2019. You can check the application online from anywhere. Jman77 applied online, unless he/she was previously denied. Then, and only then, did he/she have to file a paper application. Something's off here.

[Moabit]

That is correct. The way the new CA system is set up, you don't have online access to your application once you file it. Annoying, yes. Perhaps this is to give the investigators even more power over applicants.
But anyway, you don't have to be apologetic for not doing something you didn't have to do.

[ReasonablePersonSSC]

Surely someone can confirm whether the lookback period for traffic infractions required to be disclosed is 10 years?

Quoting from section 16 of the printed application:
"In answering the following questions, you must include all such incidents and convictions, no matter how minor the incident. Traffic violations which must be reported under this question include Failure to Appear, Driving Without a License, Driving with a Suspended License, and Reckless Driving, as well as traffic violations that resulted in a misdemeanor or felony conviction."

Hope that helps...

Could you include the quote of the actual question(s) itself/themselves? Thanks a lot.

There are a series of "yes/no" questions:

16.1a: Have you ever been convicted of the violation of a misdemeanor or felony? As used herein, a conviction includes a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or a verdict or finding of guilt, regardless of whether sentence is imposed by the court.
16.1b: If yes, please indicate the conviction type: (Choices: juvenile misdemeanor, adult misdemeanor, juvenile felony, adult felony)
16.2 Are you awaiting final adjudication for any investigation or arrest?
16.3 Have you ever been held in contempt of court?
16.4 Have you ever been granted immunity in lieu of criminal prosecution?

If YES to any of he above questions, please completer FORM 2. [additional explanation follows about copies needed]

Hope that helps.

[kiwh]

jman77,

The issue is the way the question is worded,

"In answering the following questions, you must include all such incidents and convictions, no matter how minor the incident. Traffic violations which must be reported under this question include Failure to Appear, Driving Without a License, Driving with a Suspended License, and Reckless Driving, as well as traffic violations that resulted in a misdemeanor or felony conviction."

They say violations that resulted in a misdemeanor or felony conviction but then it also states, "include all such incidents and convictions, no matter how minor the incident"

I had an infraction among other issues. I specifically asked the Bar about this question and I was told they will find the infraction even if not disclosed so you can leave it out or disclose it. If you leave it out and they find it they will question you regarding the incident. InterAlia1961 is correct. It wasn't disclosed and they found it and now they are questioning you on this incident. Whoever thought there was a 10 year look back is incorrect. I had incidents that went back to the early 2000's. They showed up but I had already disclosed them and gave an explanation.

The important thing now is to just answer what they have asked. Tell them why you didn't disclose it and most importantly don't wait on addressing this issue with them. Just tell them the truth and go from there but do it now.

[jman77]

This is very helpful, and exactly what I was looking for. Thank you very much.

Surely someone can confirm whether the lookback period for traffic infractions required to be disclosed is 10 years?

Quoting from section 16 of the printed application:
"In answering the following questions, you must include all such incidents and convictions, no matter how minor the incident. Traffic violations which must be reported under this question include Failure to Appear, Driving Without a License, Driving with a Suspended License, and Reckless Driving, as well as traffic violations that resulted in a misdemeanor or felony conviction."

Hope that helps...

Could you include the quote of the actual question(s) itself/themselves? Thanks a lot.

There are a series of "yes/no" questions:

16.1a: Have you ever been convicted of the violation of a misdemeanor or felony? As used herein, a conviction includes a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or a verdict or finding of guilt, regardless of whether sentence is imposed by the court.
16.1b: If yes, please indicate the conviction type: (Choices: juvenile misdemeanor, adult misdemeanor, juvenile felony, adult felony)
16.2 Are you awaiting final adjudication for any investigation or arrest?
16.3 Have you ever been held in contempt of court?
16.4 Have you ever been granted immunity in lieu of criminal prosecution?

If YES to any of he above questions, please completer FORM 2. [additional explanation follows about copies needed]

Hope that helps.

[jman77]

To people like Interalia, this is not the most pleasant process we have to go through. If you are not going to be helpful to someone asking for help, the least you can do is to just keep quiet and not cast aspersions on someone else's integrity and add more unpleasantness to the situation.

[Moabit]

jman77,

The issue is the way the question is worded,

They say violations that resulted in a misdemeanor or felony conviction but then it also states, "include all such incidents and convictions, no matter how minor the incident"

Yes, include all such (i.e. misdemeanor or felony) convictions no matter how minor. But an infraction is not a misdemeanor (or a felony), and so it did not need to be included. Sure, the investigator can see everything in the court system records, and if (s)he wants to discuss the improper turn, by all means oblige. Still such interest does not mean that Jman breached any duty to disclose.

[kiwh]

I did not say jman77 breached any duty. I am only sharing what I went through with the MC regarding an infraction. I had also spoke with an attorney before I submitted my MC and he told me to disclose everything even if not asked for and give explanations. That's what I did and I called the Bar and asked about several of the questions and the best way to answer. I chose to disclose everything even if not asked for as I was told if I didn't disclose then my application could be delayed significantly.

Regardless of what the circumstances are jman77 just needs to explain why he did not disclose it and answer their questions. His explanation seems valid. The absolute worst thing to do is get into a debate with the Bar as to whether he had a duty to disclose the incident and for him to become defensive over them asking about this issue. If that is the road he wants to take then an attorney would be probably be warranted.

But as said above his explanation seems valid so just tell the Bar why he didn't disclose if that is what they are asking for.

[jman77]

I’m going to respond by quoting the questions, describing the nature and disposition of the traffic infraction (making a left turn while exiting the university plaza (I was student residing in on-campus housing at the time) into what turned out to be a no-left turn street because I did not see the no-left turn sign and laying the fine on the resulting ticket), and stating that it was my honest and sincere understanding that the infraction did not fall within any of the categories of items the questions required to be disclosed (it did not pertain to a felony or misdemeanor conviction, a failure to appear, etc.).

That’s the simple truth and that’s how I’m going to respond.

I did not say jman77 breached any duty. I am only sharing what I went through with the MC regarding an infraction. I had also spoke with an attorney before I submitted my MC and he told me to disclose everything even if not asked for and give explanations. That's what I did and I called the Bar and asked about several of the questions and the best way to answer. I chose to disclose everything even if not asked for as I was told if I didn't disclose then my application could be delayed significantly.

Regardless of what the circumstances are jman77 just needs to explain why he did not disclose it and answer their questions. His explanation seems valid. The absolute worst thing to do is get into a debate with the Bar as to whether he had a duty to disclose the incident and for him to become defensive over them asking about this issue. If that is the road he wants to take then an attorney would be probably be warranted.

But as said above his explanation seems valid so just tell the Bar why he didn't disclose if that is what they are asking for.