Ethics

A couple of days ago Rob posted on the case of Loren Friedman, who falsified his transcript in applying to law firms, and also omitted to provide information about his past academic failures when applying to law schools.  For those, like me, who have argued that "character" screening of bar applicants is misplaced, does a case like this give pause?  It is not of course a case of an applicant whose lying has been disclosed and must be dealt with at the application stage, but rather of a member of the bar whose lying has subsequently come to light.  Nonetheless, for me it does raise the question of whether there is indeed a point at which one wants to draw a rational relationship between past misconduct and the likelihood of future misconduct in legal practice?  In the end I think there remain sufficient empirical reasons to say "no" but it does become somewhat uncomfortable.  The example of John Gellene also comes to mind.