From My Perspective: Successful Outcomes in the Face of Difficult Character and Fitness Issues

This article originally appeared in The Bar Examiner print edition, Summer 2025 (Vol. 94, No. 2), pp. 25–31. By  “John,” Jill O’Neill, and Hon. Ryan Guptill

From the Perspective of an Applicant to the New Hampshire Bar

By  “John”Just as law students near the end of the confusion and stress of their scholastic journey and prepare to embark on their professional career, one last hurdle can reawaken anxieties: the character and fitness review.

Submitting a bar application is stressful for all students. Everyone I know began their bar preparation unaware of just how much of an undertaking it would be to study for, and pass, the bar exam. To add another layer of stress, law students also must submit information for character and fitness review by their jurisdiction. My classmates found themselves investigating their own motor vehicle records as if they were obsessed stalkers searching for information about an unsuspecting ex. Many of us were determined to ensure that a forgotten ticket from our youth would not derail our pursuit of a law license after we had dedicated our sunny summers to the law library’s dark recesses.

For some, like me, little investigation was necessary to remember past disclosable incidents. That part is easy when one’s wrongdoings are far more significant than traffic violations. For those with minor infractions, the concern is: “I hope I don’t forget to disclose anything.” For those of us with misdemeanors, drug and/or alcohol offenses, and multiple instances of alarming conduct, the concern is: “Nobody will ever forget about this.”

Although such a review process would be much easier if everyone could forget their past, easier does not always mean better or less stressful. Throughout my first year in law school, I lived and studied under the specter of my prior wrongs, casting a shadow over the hard work involved in that introduction to the profession. Whether my criminal record would permit me to ultimately practice law seemed to be governed by nebulous and mysterious criteria enforced by an even more mysterious group that made up the character and fitness committee.

It’s hard to have a stable view or expectation of the future in such a context. On a good day, one might be confident in thinking that if they work hard and explain themselves well, they will float through the committee interview without a problem. On a bad day, that same person might be convinced they’ve dug themselves into a hole by having committed so much time, money, and effort to an endeavor that is doomed to fail. Neither of these extremes are healthy, nor are they realistic.

Gaining a realistic outlook, confidence, and an understanding of how I should prepare myself for the character and fitness review all became apparent to me only after I got into trouble, yet again, while in law school. It may be easy to think that if someone was on the borderline of being accepted into the legal profession before, surely getting in trouble while in law school would unquestionably condemn them. For me, the hidden blessing in this situation was that I no longer believed it possible to get through the process easily. Gone were the thoughts that I could move forward by crafting the most exquisite explanation regarding my past. The reality was that avoiding these issues was no longer an option.

In my personal life, I also no longer thought it possible to simply perform damage control by managing the optics, the narrative, or the potential outcomes. Instead, I chose to take advice and assistance from those who offered it. Doing so got me through the rest of law school, through my character and fitness review, and ultimately through the root causes underlying my repeated missteps. I was surprised that anyone was willing and ready to help. It was even more surprising that other people might be able to provide life-changing advice and help. Until that time, I had always thought that I was best situated to handle—on my own—my problems. That was far from the truth. And you don’t have to handle issues yourself either.

For those who find themselves in a similar position, my biggest piece of advice would be to stop handling it yourself. Academic advisors want to see their law students succeed because your school has invested as much as you have in your academic journey. My advisor informed me about the Lawyers Assistance Program, which would have been beneficial for me immediately upon entering law school, but thankfully it wasn’t too late. By the time I found myself in trouble during law school, aid provided by the program was a necessity. I acquired a mentor via the program who is a practicing attorney. Such helpful people were critical in  my reaching this destination: being a licensed attorney. They all were interested in resolving the burdens and faults underlying my situation, not simply managing the optics. This resulted in personal growth, which not only made me an acceptable candidate for membership in the bar but also helped me accept myself and raise my personal standards.

The help I received meant I had little fear going into the character and fitness interview and review process. When I first entered law school, I was fearful of this all, although I would not have admitted it at the time. I would play out scenarios in my mind of what might occur and how to handle each possibility. Unsurprisingly, this was impossible. I was unsure about whether my investment of time, money, and energy would pay off. But, by the time I went to my character and fitness interview, the help I had received made me confident in what I had done in my own life to prepare myself—not just to prepare my case. I walked into the interview with an open mind, willing to share any information the committee members wanted to know. That is the frame of mind one should be in for a character and fitness interview—one based on candor and honesty. Remember, the committee members are primarily lawyers. If you walk in expecting to litigate your case, they might just oblige. However, if you walk in prepared, not to make a case, but to demonstrate who you are and—if necessary—who you have become, then you will most likely be recommended for license by these future colleagues.

Because of this mindset and prior preparation, my experience before the character and fitness committee was not overwhelmingly stressful. I was certainly aware of the process’s seriousness and the impact that these individuals’ decision would have on my future. But the committee members were neither hostile nor adversarial toward me. Some asked tough questions. Others asked simple questions designed to test whether I would try to evade certain details of my past wrongdoings. It appeared to me that the members would rather recommend me as a member of the bar, but that they understood the importance of their role in determining whether to do so would be right.

Approaching this process with confidence in a good outcome, especially if you have a past like mine, requires self-preparation. It requires humbling yourself and reaching out to others who are able and willing to help. This sets you up for achieving the goal of law licensure.

From the Perspective of the New Hampshire Lawyers Assistance Program

By Jill O’NeillThe New Hampshire Lawyers Assistance Program is an independent, confidential resource established by the New Hampshire Supreme Court that offers support to law students and bar applicants who face personal challenges such as stress, burnout, mental health concerns, alcohol and drug misuse, and character and fitness issues.1 NHLAP programing includes a Professionals Monitoring Program for those whose misconduct involves or was affected by mental health problems or substance use disorders. Assistance such as this, along with appropriate treatment, means many participants recover and lead fulfilling personal and professional lives.

Upon connecting with NHLAP,  a person gets welcomed by the executive director or team clinician; combined, they have 40 years’ experience working with individuals and families seeking support for mental health and substance use disorders, which often co-occur.

NHLAP providers use a holistic or “whole person” approach to consider all aspects of a person’s life, including biological, psychological, social, and environmental factors, rather than exclusively focusing on behaviors or symptoms. By understanding underlying factors influencing behavior, we can better understand why people behave the way they do. This helps us develop more specific and effective strategies for addressing behavioral challenges or achieving positive change. To meet these goals, we seek assistance from our referral network, which includes highly qualified treatment programs and providers; robust peer-support programming; mutual self-help groups; and certified professional coaches specializing in executive functioning, recovery from substance addiction or process addictions (including those related to gambling, eating disorders, sexual activity, internet use, exercise, and video games), and career coaching.

NHLAP also coordinates comprehensive evaluations by vetted providers and connects participants with recommended evidence-based treatment interventions. NHLAP providers serve as liaisons between treatment providers, recovery supports, disciplinary boards, and members of the New Hampshire Committee on Character and Fitness, shielding personal health information while providing updates regarding compliance with treatment recommendations, medication adherence, and abstinence from alcohol and illicit drugs through randomized testing.

A major part of NHLAP assistance is that providers conduct regular participant check-ins. Providers help participants stay on track with their goals by offering support, encouragement, and a sense of responsibility. Clearly defined roles, responsibilities, goals, and standards foster open and honest dialogue between providers and participants. Such dialogues help to provide motivation, celebrate successes, and implement a system where outcomes reinforce desired behaviors and address shortcomings.

I can confirm that witnessing personal transformations via recovery is gratifying. ”John”2 was an aspiring legal professional (2L) when he was self-referred at the direction of his dean of students after an arrest for driving while intoxicated (DWI) in the summer between his first and second years of law school. NHLAP provided him with a next-day appointment. Initially, John denied having a problem with alcohol but understood the significance of the legal consequences he faced and their potential impact on his admission to the New Hampshire Bar.

Frequent meetings with NHLAP revealed John’s pattern of unhealthy drinking, which increased after he experienced chronic pain resulting from a service-related back injury. Although not a daily drinker, John had three DWI charges within seven years.

A master licensed alcohol and drug counselor assessed John. The counselor diagnosed him with alcohol use disorder and recommended that John participate in an Intensive Outpatient Program. John completed the IOP and 20 weekly counseling sessions with a licensed alcohol and drug counselor through the Department of Veterans Affairs. Additionally, he was randomly drug tested for one year under NHLAP monitoring.

The strong influence of John’s sober support network has been instrumental in his recovery. He was assigned an NHLAP mentor, an attorney in long-term sobriety who introduced John to Alcoholics Anonymous. Through his step work, John learned to deal with sobriety’s emotional aspects. John also attends NHLAP’s monthly Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers (LCL) Peer Recovery meetings, where he receives additional support and makes professional and social connections.

Inspired by his VA counselor, John found alternate methods to manage his chronic pain, including a natural supplement regimen and an exercise routine, which improved his physical health significantly. Today, John successfully manages his chronic pain and maintains excellent physical health.

Through his hard work and by availing himself of treatment and recovery supports, John has remained in active recovery. Last summer, his NHLAP mentor awarded him a two-year sobriety chip at an LCL meeting. Last fall, John was admitted to the New Hampshire Bar.

Many participants entering NHLAP monitoring often feel overwhelmed by shame, fear, and regret. These emotions frequently resurface when it comes time to complete the bar application and prepare to deliver testimony before the character and fitness committee. Sharing details about past misconduct, as well as sensitive information regarding mental health and substance use disorders, with respected professionals is daunting.

It is common for NHLAP providers to be invited by participants to attend their hearings for emotional support and to testify about their involvement in NHLAP monitoring. During John’s hearing before the committee, the NHLAP provider who attended was highly impressed by the committee’s sensitivity, noting their efforts to avoid stigmatizing or retraumatizing John during questioning.

Given the higher-than-average rates of problematic drinking and other substance use within the legal profession, it is vital to educate members on this subject starting in law school, destigmatize help-seeking, and offer rehabilitative pathways for individuals to enter or return to the legal profession. John’s case offers an example of a pathway to success.

From the Perspective of the New Hampshire Supreme Court Committee on Character and Fitness

By Hon. Ryan Guptill

The New Hampshire Supreme Court Committee on Character and Fitness was created by Rule 42, II, of the Rules of the Supreme Court of New Hampshire to consider the character and fitness of applicants to the New Hampshire Bar and to make recommendations to the Court regarding their admission. The committee is pleased to have the opportunity in this article to share the process it used in considering a recent law school graduate who was interviewed and recommended for admission. This applicant is now a member of the New Hampshire Bar.

New Hampshire is fortunate to have written character and fitness standards set forth in New Hampshire Supreme Court Rule 42B. The standards identify both positive characteristics an applicant should possess to be admitted, as well as behaviors that may be disqualifying. If the committee determines that an applicant has exhibited disqualifying behavior in the past, the rule directs the committee to examine the applicant’s current character and fitness and determine “whether the applicant is sufficiently rehabilitated to remove the serious taint of the applicant’s prior unfitness.”1 The applicant has the burden to demonstrate their good character and fitness via clear and convincing evidence.2

Applicants submit a petition and complete a questionnaire for admission that provides information about their background, including criminal arrests and convictions, involvement in civil litigation, unresolved outstanding debt, academic misconduct proceedings, and other areas that may touch on character and fitness to practice law. An investigation is then undertaken, from which a “discussion list” gets generated. The committee considers applicants on this list during its quarterly meetings. After such discussion, the committee may vote to recommend an applicant for admission, may seek further information from an applicant, or may request an interview with an applicant.

The initial interview is an informal proceeding. Applicants first receive a notice of personal interview that sets forth the issues of concern. They are welcome to attend with an attorney, but most choose not to be represented at the interview. Interviews are confidential and are not transcribed or recorded. The nine members of the committee, who are made up of attorneys and lay members, introduce themselves and open the floor to the applicant to address the areas of concern. In most cases, the committee deliberates immediately post-interview and votes on its recommendation to the Supreme Court. If needed, the committee will request additional information from an applicant or other sources before voting. If an applicant’s misconduct is recent, the committee may offer the applicant the opportunity to defer his or her request for admission pending specific rehabilitative efforts (e.g., completion of a monitoring agreement with the lawyer’s assistance program). If the committee recommends against admission after the interview, the applicant has a right to request a formal hearing, at which participants are under oath and a record is created.

In the case covered in this article, the applicant, “John,”3 reported that he had been charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI) on three separate occasions. He was twice convicted of DWI in civilian courts, in 2016 and 2022, and was disciplined for DWI in an Article 15 disciplinary proceeding while serving in the US armed forces in 2017. The 2022 DWI occurred in the summer between John’s first and second years of law school. Both the number and recency of these DWI convictions raised serious concerns for the committee about both John’s substance use habits and his judgment. John reported in his application that he had been abstinent from alcohol since the 2022 arrest and had begun attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. He also reported that he was working with the New Hampshire Lawyers Assistance Program  and had developed meaningful relationships with the NHLAP director and with a mentor through the program. Based on his written application and supporting documents, the committee elected to schedule John for an interview.

At his interview, John explained his history of alcohol misuse, which started at an early age. He also discussed the impact of a service-­connected injury that prompted him to self-medicate with alcohol while in the armed forces. Importantly, however, John did not make excuses for his actions or blame external forces for the decisions he made.4 Instead, committee members were immediately struck by his candor, insight, and maturity in discussing his relationship with alcohol. He spoke thoughtfully about how, after his first two arrests, he had the desire to change but always believed he could do so on his own, without others’ help. He had long periods of abstinence but would ultimately start using alcohol again. Looking back, he realized that he lacked the right tools to achieve a lasting recovery and needed to get help.

John began developing those tools after his 2022 DWI, largely due to his referral to an Intensive Outpatient Program through the Department of Veterans Affairs and his engagement with NHLAP. John successfully completed both the treatment program and a year-long monitoring contract with NHLAP. Through his treatment and engagement with NHLAP, John was paired with an attorney mentor, who also served as his AA sponsor. Additionally, John met regularly with the NHLAP director. He also submitted to random drug and alcohol testing to provide him with accountability for his recovery.

Based on these facts, the committee was impressed that, when John committed to recovery in 2022, it was not a pro forma exercise in checking boxes to satisfy his criminal sentence or assuage character and fitness concerns. His answers to the committee’s questions showed deep insight into his relationship with alcohol and the significance of sobriety. He understood that sobriety was his pathway to creating a meaningful life. John had a strong support system, which included his AA sponsor/mentor through the NHLAP program and the NHLAP program director. He was recently engaged and spoke of his fiancée as one of his greatest supporters and motivators to maintain his sobriety. John also spoke of rediscovering his religious faith, which assisted him in his personal growth. His AA sponsor wrote a thoughtful letter of support, which John provided to the committee. The NHLAP director addressed the committee, stating that John continued to follow his NHLAP contract even though its formal term had expired. She noted his additional service to others through NHLAP, including his work with law students facing similar challenges.

Rule 42B, XI(13), provides that substance misuse or substance use disorders may be disqualifying for a person applying for admission to the New Hampshire Bar. Practically speaking, committee members recognize that substance use disorders are chronic illnesses and that recovery is a lifelong journey. Thus, for individuals presently in recovery, the key question the committee seeks to answer is whether the applicant has developed adequate recovery supports and made the necessary changes in their life to minimize the likelihood of a reoccurrence of disordered use and to provide a safety net to help the applicant bounce back if there is such a reoccurrence. The comments to Rule 42B, XI(13), support this approach, focusing on future risk and noting that applicants who have struggled with substance use are “expected to demonstrate a meaningful period of non-use and to have developed support and/or coping mechanisms, either external or internal, which make it unlikely that the applicant” will use the relevant substance(s) again. The comments also suggest that applicants who have substance use disorders are generally expected to have abstained from use for at least one year to be approved for bar admission.

In John’s case, the committee noted that both his criminal convictions and his substance use disorder were potentially disqualifying under the applicable rules. However, the committee found that John’s successful completion of treatment and his NHLAP monitoring agreement, combined with his ongoing recovery efforts and strong support network, mitigated the risks his substance use disorder posed. The committee further noted that the honesty and insight John demonstrated concerning his illness and his sincere commitment to doing what he needed to maintain his recovery showed substantial personal growth and rehabilitation. Although John’s third DWI occurred recently relative to John’s application, the committee found, based both on John’s credible answers during the interview and the substantial supporting evidence he submitted, that John had made “relevant and significant personal change” such that “the public interest will not be jeopardized by his . . . admission.”5 Ultimately, the committee found that John had met the burden to prove his character and fitness and voted to recommend his admission. The Supreme Court adopted this recommendation, and John was admitted to the New Hampshire Bar.

John told the committee he hoped to draw on his own recovery journey to help guide and support his clients when they face similar challenges. I recently had the pleasure of having John appear in my courtroom representing a defendant in a criminal case. He was well-prepared and put his client at ease in a stressful situation. I am certain that John’s determination to learn from his own experiences will strengthen his ability to advise and advocate for his clients throughout his career.

The committee members consider the interview to be a humane process. It allows applicants to address concerns with the applications in an informal manner, allowing an open conversation with committee members in a way that a formal, on-the-record hearing with direct and cross-examination of witnesses simply cannot. It also helps many applicants avoid the expense of retaining counsel. We know how stressful it can be to appear for such an interview. However, those who are honest, direct, and insightful can engage in a dialogue that can be deeply meaningful to them and to the committee members. John’s case exemplifies how an applicant with significant struggles can demonstrate, through the interview process, that they have made the necessary life changes to be admitted to the bar.

Contact us to request a pdf file of the original article as it appeared in the print edition.