Today I received a letter from The State Bar of California, the pertinent contents of which are:
The Committee of Bar Examiners is pleased to advise you that you have been found to possess the good moral character required for certification to practice law in California.
Being one who pays attention to the way things are worded, I cannot help but notice that the letter does not say, directly, “you possess good moral character.” Instead, I have “been found to possess” moral character. And not just “good moral character,” nor even “moral character good enough to practice law,” but just what is “required for certification to practice law.” Not to practice anywhere, either—only in California.
In other words, “We, the Committee of Bar Examiners in California, couldn’t find any good excuses to keep you out of our Association on account of your being a scoundrel or a criminal or anything.” Hardly a ringing endorsement, but it will have to do.
I think that is exactly what I wrote in my reference for you. “Peter is not a scoundrel.” ; )
Whew. I thought you might have said I was a “low-down, stuck-up, half-witted, scruffy-looking nerf herder.”
I only said good things about you. Actually, if I recall correctly, the letter I received only had multiple choice or yes/no questions. I don’t remember having to write out a description of you or anything like that, though if I had, you can be assured I would not have described you that way. ; )
I’m sure their wording is to avoid their determination being used in lawsuits. For example, if a father wanted custody and the mother was fighting it, the State Bar would not want him saying, “Well, the CA State Bar found I have good moral character,” when the mother says that he is an unfit parent.
You know lawyers- always trying to cover their own butts.
I guess they don’t know you’re a blogger, eh?
Surely not. Everyone knows that bloggers, by definition, lack sufficient moral character. Otherwise, they would be journalists, politicians, or perhaps even pimps.
Especially pagan bloggers.