The Supreme Court of Washington recently decided that a registered sex offender can be licensed to practice law in Washington. As reported by Gene Johnson of the Seattle Times:
Zachary Leroy Stevens, 35, has been living in Arizona, where he attended law school and worked for a lawyer who represents American Indian tribes. He grew up in Utah, where he was convicted of voyeurism after sending child pornography to an undercover detective in 2006 at age 19 and where several years later he was arrested for drunken driving while on probation. . . . Stevens applied to become a lawyer in Washington in 2019, after Arizona rejected his application. A Washington State Bar Association committee reviewed his petition and rejected it 6-5. He appealed to the Supreme Court.
In the Matter of the Bar Application of Zachary Leroy Stevens, No. 201, 997-8, decided by the Supreme Court of Washington in a 5-4 decision on November 3, 2022, Justice Mary Yu, writing for the majority, concluded, “that Stevens’ serious misconduct is sufficiently mitigated that it should not prevent his admission to the bar.” The majority relied on numerous factors it considered as mitigating, including Stevens’s age at the time he committed the crimes, the amount of time that has passed since the criminal conduct occurred, Stevens’s candor, his ongoing efforts at rehabilitation and recovery, and his compliance with the discipline imposed related to the misconduct.
Justice Barbara Madsen’s dissenting opinion offers a different take, which I found highly persuasive. She stated:
[T]he majority largely ignores the fact that Stevens is still required to register as a sex offender until at least 2024. The majority notes he has complied with his registration requirements but fails to consider this ongoing legal obligation as a factor weighing against Stevens’ admission. Although Stevens’ conduct was not recent, he has a continuing legal obligation that he has not fulfilled. . . . If Stevens moves to Washington, he will have to register as a sex offender. . . . We have similarly previously rejected applicants who were still on parole at the time of their application. In my view, we can maintain public trust and protect the public interest by requiring individuals to fulfill their ongoing legal obligations before being admitted to the bar. I would find the fact that Stevens is still required to register as an offender to be a strong aggravating factor.
Me too. In admitting an attorney to the bar, as indicated by Justice Madsen, protecting the public interest is paramount. The public must feel confident in attorneys and know they meet acceptable legal and ethical standards. I would feel uncomfortable if I retained an attorney only to find out that the attorney was a registered sex offender still fulfilling associated legal obligations. Mr. Stevens’s application to be admitted to the Washington Bar is premature. Although I do not necessarily believe Mr. Stevens should be forever barred from practicing law, it is appropriate for his application to be denied until he has fulfilled all legal obligations related to his criminal conduct.
Phone: (206) 784-5305
