Is the Maryland character fitness test unconstitutionally vague?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The overall purpose of the character and fitness testis to protect the public from unscrupulous attorneys. The average age of newly admitted attorneys in the United States is 26 years old. Because past behavior is a strong indicator of future behavior, character committees investigate the past behavior of young attorneys to determine the potential future behavior of these same attorneys. The idea is that “good” young attorneys will continue to do good while “bad” young attorneys will continue to do bad. So, a designated committee investigates an attorney’s past conduct to determine whether issuing a license to practice law will be in the public’s best interest. This is not what happened with Solon Phillips. . Solon Phillips has lived for nearly half of a century. During this time, there is no showing, no pattern, no history of unscrupulous or indiscreet behavior. On the contrary, there is a showing that spans over 25 years of a consistent pattern of selfless behavior geared towards serving the public. . There was over 25-character reference letters from attorneys, professors, . employers, a judge, and a forensic report that all described Solon as a man of high integrity and exemplary character. When the Maryland Board of Law Examiners found Solon to be too immorally unacceptable to be issued a , licensed to practice law, questions abounded. Before this Court now are questions that only this Court can address: I (1) Is the Maryland character fitness test unconstitutionally vague because it leaves the triers of fact free to decide, without any legally fixed standards, what is and what is not morally acceptable in each particular case? (2) The Supreme Court has held that when a bar applicant is denied admission and there is no basis for finding the applicant fails to meet the qualifications required to practice law that applicant is denied due | process of law. The Board of Law Examiners reported that Solon lacked the requisite moral character for admission, but the record is void of any behavior that would lead a reasonable person to reach this conclusion. Did Maryland violate Solon’s due process of law by denying him admission when there was no rational basis for the denial? (8) The Constitution requires a State to afford all individuals an opportunity to be heard on matters impacting life, liberty, and property in order to fulfill the promise of the Due Process Clause. Maryland denied Solon the privilege to practice law on specific issues which it never afforded Solon an opportunity to address. Did ~ Maryland violate Solon’s due process rights? (4) The Supreme Court has held that any State act permitting a delay without limit is unconstitutional. The Maryland State Board of Law Examiners held Solon’s bar application open for nearly four years I] without any explanation for the delay. Was this unexplained delay unconstitutional? Ul