/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/STUDKLLB3NKBTHJDP4UQMFITFE.jpg)
A sharply divided Washington Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a man who was previously convicted of a sex offense and other crimes can be licensed as an attorney.
The 5-4 decision clears the way for Zachary LeRoy Stevens, who graduated from Arizona State University’s law school in 2018, to practice law in Washington.
The opinion said Stevens had a difficult childhood in Utah and sought refuge online, where in 2006 he sent pornographic images of minors to a detective posing as a 14-year-old. He was charged in 2010 with four counts of sexual exploitation of a minor and pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of voyeurism, which required him to register as a sex offender.
The most exciting thing I’ve read today! Not binding on CA, but hopefully persuasive authority.
That is absolutely correct. We are greater than our lowest mistake.
Wonderful ruling out of Washington!
Pretty reasonable really. 14 is more than old enough to know what you’re doing when it comes to these things. And people know it. Despite the taboo around the subject.
This is awesome! If anyone would have compassion for registrants and their families, this man will. I hope and pray that he uses this opportunity to help those who are forced to register.
Good on him & the state of WA.
In Wisconsin no way he’s granted admission to our bar assc. I’ve seen Wisbar reject a person for a shoplifting beef.
Amazing news!
Good. If a man turns his life around, he should be allowed to work wherever he wants. Why should someone be denied an opportunity to better himself because of a previous conviction.
Like the judge said, his past does not define who he is now. Finally a judge who has common sense.
Honestly best decision I made was moving to WA… I’m not on the website, I have my career back, family is happy, and no restrictions on where I can live or go. I mean the rain sucks but hey you can’t beat the scenery.
I look at it this way, he’s probably going to be the best lawyer that you can have out there. Sounds like he’s been through a lot in life and is pretty seasoned in the ins and outs of the legal system. My lawyer for my possession case was an ex cop. So he knew the corruption inside and out of the police force. People that have lived through it, usually are the best at understanding it. I wish him the best to show that PFR’s I’m more than just a label.
Damn, that is twice the home state has done something constructive in a week for a PFR/PFRs with the other one being the ability to vote as a felon. All the rain and wet of Western WA State must have done something positive to the thinking process. Hope and pray they continue the good streak.
I am happy this person can now practice law after bouncing back from what his past held and each bar case should be individually assessed for fitness, etc as needed. Those who feel otherwise should look in the mirror and decide if what they have done should be reviewed for meeting fitness requirements.
I see Chance O. of Washington state in the making
The linguistic gymnastics the dissent goes through in this opinion is astounding. They could have summed it up in four words: “Registered Sex Offender, Rejected.” That is the ONLY reason they have a problem with giving this guy a law license. Ditto, the board.
Concerning also is the board and the dissent’s claim of lack of qualification of the treating psychiatrist. None cite any disqualifying factors of said psychiatrist, nor any qualifications of their own to to dispute his conclusions. Funny how they demand evidence of current moral turpitude, yet disregard all evidence of such with absolutely no basis whatsoever.
The voyeurism charge is what I feel low level misdemeanor CP possession should be changed to. But as to the decision to allow him to hold a law license, why not? Politicians are convicted of felonies all the time and continue to write laws. Why not allow one to defend laws or fight them.
Those who may see this as an opportunity to now move to the State of Washington so as to take advantage of this Court’s decision should be aware that the Court determined that all such cases are treated as “individual determinations” and is not a legal ruling that applies to all others now seeking similar relief.
All applicants seeking relief similar in nature would likely be viewed as engaging in “forum shopping”, an issue vigorously argued by dissenting justices. The subject in this case (Zachary Stevens) had presented unequivocal and documented evidence that he and his family had planned to move to Washington, and in fact DID move to Washington, prior to his application for relief, and prior to this court’s ruling, and therefore was not engaged in “forum shopping”.
In California, there is a California Supreme Court case, (In re Grant, S197503 [2014]) in which an attorney seeking to overturn his disbarment due to his CP conviction, was denied and he was unable to continue his legal career. The California Sup. Court ruled that CP offenses are ALWAYS “crimes of moral turpitude” per se, and thus those with such convictions (PC 311’s and Federal CP offenses) may not hold a law license issued by the State of California.
The Grant ruling and determination that CP offenses are per se “crimes of moral turpitude” also applies to licensure through other California agencies (such as Dept. of Consumer Affairs which licenses private investigators – my former profession). Tow truck drivers, beauticians, real estate salespeople, and others who must hold a “state license” are prohibited from holding the requisite licenses and may not engage in their chosen professions as a result.
This sounds like pretty good news.
No one should be “defined” solely based on their past missteps.