I was pointed to this article about an accountant who was convicted of a hate crime. After serving his time and completing all the requirements of his sentence, he was discharged from probation in 2005. Two years later, he applied for reinstatement of his CPA license. Somehow the license got reactivated, despite the man’s felony conviction, but the State Board of Accountancy revoked it.
The Board had revoked the license not just because of the felony conviction but because the accountant was basically non-repentant and, as the result, of bad character.
[T]he very nature of Respondent’s offense — involving an irrational hatred of the victim — is plainly a manifestation of a character defect. Although [Ake] had completed all requirements of his criminal sentence as of February 2005, the Board has grave doubts as to whether [Ake] fully rehabilitated.
The Board’s decision was overturned by a 2-1 decision of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court. In dissent, one judge wrote:
[The Board] was empowered to conclude that Ake’s conviction evidenced bad character. As this Court recognized in Foose v. State Board of Vehicle Manufacturers, Dealers and Salespersons, 578 A.2d 1355, 1358 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990), a rational connection between one’s past derelictions and present ability to serve in a profession that requires honesty and integrity can exist “where those events occurred so recently that the particular character trait of the individual involved can be reasonably assumed to have remained unchanged.”
Nearly all professions have what amounts to a morals clause as a part of the licensing. (I tried to find the VA information online but strangely enough, it wasn’t readily available on the Board of Accountancy website.)
So my question is this: should “bad character” be considered as a part of licensing?
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
As “hate” crimes are thought crimes, and therefore, unconstitutional, this is the correct result.
And if you would deny this man the right to earn a living in the profession in which he was trained for being “unrepentant” — for what, I wonder? You don’t mention his crime. Was it assault? Was he unrepentant for the assault, or for his hatred of the victim? — why wouldn’t you deny “unrepentant” felons the right to vote to select our leaders and policy makers?
Now that I’ve read Volokh’s post, I would amend my comments: of course, he should be licensed. It is absurd to turn a misdemeanor crime — and I have no problem with the criminalization of telephone harassment — into a felony simply because of the motivation of the harasser. This is paradigm thought crime.
Looks to me as though he’s being persecuted for his religious beliefs. Good grief — being kicked out of the Young Men’s CHRISTIAN Association for forming a Bible Study group?
In response to your question, yes. In my opinion, character or ethics or standards of professional conduct are essential to the services provided by accountants. It is impossible to screen out all bad actors; but I don’t think that in anyway diminishes the value of the standards of both the state regulators and the AICPA (I feel like a public service announcement now).
It’s a difficult question though when you ask what felony convictions should be excluded from the determination of “good character.” According to the Virginia Code (§ 54.1-4409.1):
That seems to me like we have struck the right balance. And I think in general, unless it can be demonstrated that the act relates to their professional conduct, it shouldn’t be a disqualifier.
Yeah, you sound like a PSA 🙂 And thanks for locating the Code.
As his crime had no impact on his services as an accountant, his license should never have been suspended in the first place.
It is not the Board of Accountancy’s function to ensure all accounts are nice guys, but to ensure they are honest and capable accounts, and no more.
If we allow professional boards to grant or deny licenses based on moral values by refusing this guy a license because of his hatred of homosexuals, then how do we prevent another board at another time or place from denying a license to a homosexual because in their view that constitutes bad character?
The power to license based on values is the same, only the values of the board members are different. Never unnecessarily give government a knife to hold to your throat.
That’s ‘accountants’ not accounts.
Darned idiot spell checker!
I would like to clarify your view concerning the limitation of how character should be applied. There are a number of felony offenses in Virginia that do not pertain to fraud. So, if a professional commits one of these other felonies, you’re saying that should have no bearing on whether they can obtain a license?
It would depend on if the felony had a bearing on their performance. A crime of dishonesty would be disqualifying for an accountant or pretty much any professional, but a sexual felony might be disqualifying for a pediatrician but not an accountant.
While I was using the referenced case as a jumping off point, I really wasn’t asking about that particular case. I was more concerned about the broader question of so-called “bad character” and whether it should be considered in licensing.