Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In Re Krule

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided December 1, 2000No. M.R 16045Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice McMORROW

I am in agreement with the majority that the evidence relating to the post-hearing events involving petitioner Jerome Krule and a foreign student was inappropriately admitted and should not have affected the ultimate decision of the Committee on Character and Fitness (Committee). I respectfully dissent, however, from the majority’s denial of petitioner’s application for admission to the bar.

Initially, I recognize that the privilege to practice law is exactly that, a privilege and not a right. However, that privilege should not be denied absent cogent reason. Although, in reviewing the merits…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. People v. MalchowIllinois Supreme Court · 2000
  2. In Re MitanIllinois Supreme Court · 1979
  3. In Re LossIllinois Supreme Court · 1987
  4. In Re EckbergIllinois Supreme Court · 2000
  5. In Re ChildressIllinois Supreme Court · 1990

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API