In Re Stolar

Background

Martin Stolar, a recent law school graduate already licensed in New York, applied to join the Ohio Bar. Ohio’s committee asked many personal questions. Stolar provided his New York answers but refused three Ohio questions that would have made him list all organizations he had joined and say whether he belonged to any group that advocated overthrowing the U.S. government by force. Because of his refusal, the committee recommended denying him entry and the Ohio Supreme Court approved that denial. The United States Supreme Court agreed to review the case.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether the First Amendment protects a person who declines to answer questions about beliefs and associations that have not led to illegal action. Citing earlier decisions like Shelton v. Tucker and Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, the majority said forcing applicants to list organizations or to admit membership in groups that allegedly advocate violent overthrow chills association and is not justified here. The Court emphasized that Stolar had supplied extensive personal, educational, and character information, and that there was no evidence of bad moral character or illegal conduct. The Court therefore reversed Ohio’s denial.

Real world impact

The ruling prevents Ohio and similar state bars from denying admission solely because an applicant refuses to list past organizations or admit membership in groups advocating violent overthrow. It protects bar applicants’ associational privacy while allowing states to investigate fitness to practice using relevant, non-intrusive information. The case was reversed and sent back for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissenting group of Justices argued that asking about membership in violent or overthrowing organizations can be relevant to a lawyer’s fitness and that admissions to one State’s Bar may not automatically settle another State’s inquiries. They would have affirmed Ohio’s decision.