Posted on 12/22/2009 2:48:00 PM PST by Altura Ct.
Hostile reviewers ruled him mentally unfit to practice law, he claims.
Bryan Brown is a conservative, activist and unapologetic Christian. Of that there is no doubt.
But does that mean he is also mentally ill? Too ill even to be a lawyer?
The bureaucracy that controls access to Indiana's legal profession believes that very thing, according to a lawsuit in which Brown alleges that he was subjected to a series of hostile religious and political questions during a review of his fitness to practice law - a review that subsequently rejected him on mental-health grounds.
The lawsuit, filed by Brown himself this week in U.S. District Court in Fort Wayne, contends the Indiana Board of Law Examiners, created by the state Supreme Court in 1931 to screen bar applicants for character and fitness, ordered Brown - for reasons unknown - to appear before representatives of the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program (JLAP) in January 2008. According to its Web site, the program “offers to help judges, attorneys and law students who experience physical or mental disabilities.”
There is nothing inherently sinister or inappropriate about examining Brown, or anybody else, wishing to practice law in Indiana. State guidelines require applicants to “possess good moral character and fitness to practice law.” But how do you prove you're not crazy when any attempt to do so would require a renouncement of your most deeply held religious beliefs?
For the 50-year-old New Haven native who passed the Kansas bar in 1996, an Indiana law license would do far more than allow him to make a living. It would enable him to use the legal system in behalf of pro-life and other traditional, Christian causes under the umbrella of the Arch Angel Institute, which he helped create two years ago and operates from a former abortion clinic at 827 Webster St. And, in fact, Brown's long history as a militant defender of the unborn may have raised some legitimate red flags as to his fitness.
In 1991, he and other members of Northeast Indiana Rescue were fined $61,600 for picketing too near the Webster Street Women's Health Clinic. Brown admits to having been arrested “about a dozen” times for pro-life activities, although none of the charges was a felony, which would have disqualified him from the Indiana bar. But none of his actions can explain, or justify, some of the questions to which he was allegedly subjected by two mental-health professionals selected by the JLAP.
Fort Wayne psychologist Steven Ross, Brown claims, used a test including such questions as: Do you believe that you should be punished for your sins? Do you believe the husband should be the head of the family? Do you have strong political opinions? Do you believe that a multitude of people are involved in sexual sins? Have you ever had a vision?
Ross initially concluded that he had found nothing that “should preclude Mr. Brown from taking the bar exam,” but JLAP Clinical Director Tim Sudrovech allegedly added the conclusion that Brown's religious fervor “suggests a sub-clinical level of bipolar disorder which would warrant further consideration by a psychiatrist.”
The JLAP then referred Brown to Indianapolis psychiatrist Elizabeth Bowman, who concluded he suffered from a personality disorder after questioning him about the Arch Angel Institute's religious beliefs and his own “religious arrogance.” Bowman mocked his Christian “pro-life zeal,” Brown claims, and questioned his interpretation of Scripture. “If admitted to the Indiana bar he would likely continue his anti-abortion activities,” according to a portion of her report quoted in the lawsuit.
Is the Catholic Brown fit to be an attorney? I have no idea. But I do know that, while it is proper to require a certain code of conduct from attorneys regardless of their beliefs, determining the legitimacy of the religious motivations for his actions is beyond the authority of a government bound by the First Amendment. Even more troubling is Brown's assertion that Bowman has been associated with the Fort Wayne Feminists, who sued Brown in the 1990s. During his session with Bowman, Brown claims, she said the “trouble” he caused in Fort Wayne would not “just be forgotten.”
Ross and Sudrovech declined comment, as did the Supreme Court. Bowman did not return a phone call.
I know many faithful Christian attorneys, and my Catholic wife heads the Allen County Bar Association, so if there's a conspiracy to scrub orthodox Christians from the legal profession, it is failing miserably. But Brown's lawsuit raises troubling questions of church-state separation and conflict of interest, and it deserves the interest of anybody who cares about the integrity and diversity of Indiana's legal system.
Lawyers??? I thought being mentally ill was a prequisit to practising law.
If I have offended any lawyers out there.... Ha ha ha haaaaaaa!!!!!
This is a clear and ripe 1st amendment case.
Law is rooted in morality, Morality only exists if there is a God otherwise its just “make it up as you go for convenience sake.” I would question the sanity, and validity, of Athiest lawyers.
Being a sociopath is almost a prerequisite to being successful in law, but that's not really a treatable mental "illness;" it's more of a personality type.
Gulag stuff. The country is in deep, deep trouble.
Nope. I agree with you.
So, if you answer “yes” to any of those questions, that means you are insane?
Either those questions were specifically designed to deny this particular individual a license, or they were designed to excluse Christians in general.
Either way, this cannot be allowed to stand.
He wouldn’t be the first mentally ill Christian crusader lawyer. Jack Tompson comes to mind, but at least he was good enough to fool the psych examiner.
Now there is a religion test to take the bar?
Religion=psychosis?
We should be very, very frightened.
...“suggests a sub-clinical level of bipolar disorder which would warrant further consideration by a psychiatrist.”
Since it is absolutely impossible to pin down any psychiatrist on what "bipolar disorder" actually means, what in the Hell would define a "sub-clinical level of bipolar disorder"?
I tell you what it means to me. It means "I don't like this guy or his opinions so I am going to throw out some fancy psychiatrist type words that make him sound/look bad and thus taint him with mental illness in a way that nobody can ever prove is wrong.
This method was used by Marxists in both the Soviet Union and China against their dissidents. They used different names for the "disorders", but the underlying philosophy was the same.
"Our philosophy and worldview is so obviously true and correct that if you disagree with us, you MUST be crazy and we will treat you as such." And that's when they even bothered to try to justify it.
Oh, Thaaaat Elizabeth Bowman. I wonder how she feels about the Dred Scott decision. It was a popular stand in 1858. Bowman needs a thorough exam.
Oh, Thaaaat Elizabeth Bowman. I wonder how she feels about the Dred Scott decision. It was a popular stand in 1858. Bowman needs a thorough exam.
Mark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.