A state panel has concluded that convicted murderer and inmate-rights activist James Hamm is not fit to be an attorney and shouldn’t be permitted to practice law in Arizona, the Associated Press has learned.

Court documents unsealed Jan. 14 state that Hamm, an Arizona State University law college graduate, is appealing the Oct. 5 recommendation by the Arizona Supreme Court’s character and fitness review committee.

Hamm has appealed the committee’s recommendation to the Supreme Court, which is now awaiting the committee’s response to Hamm’s appeal.

Hamm graduated from law school after being released from prison. He got an undergraduate degree while serving 17 years in prison for shooting one of two men killed during a 1974 robbery in Tucson.

Hamm passed the bar exam in 1999, a state board took him off parole in 2001 and he filed his application with the Supreme Court in January 2004.

Hamm works as a paralegal, expert witness and sentencing mitigation analyst for attorneys. He and his wife also operate a prisoner-advocacy group, Middle Ground Prison Reform.

The character and fitness committee said Hamm’s strong record of rehabilitation and professional successes doesn’t overcome the two killings and their serious consequences.

The committee also said he failed to pay court-ordered child support and wasn’t completely candid with the committee.

During testimony before the committee, Hamm “mischaracterized the murders as simply a drug deal gone bad at an instant. On the contrary, the evidence and facts suggest that the robbing and murder of the two victims was carefully preplanned and well thought out by Hamm and his accomplices,” the commission stated.

Hamm’s appeal said he accepted full responsibility for the 1974 killing but that denying him permission to practice law would be a denial of his 14th Amendment constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under the law.

“Only necessity is sufficient cause for denial of the opportunity to practice law, because pursuing a line of work, a type of employment, is indeed a right, not a privilege, and may be entered only for legitimate and substantial reasons,” he wrote.

Hamm also said he was truthful during two days of testimony before the committee and that his payment of child support once he learned of his obligation demonstrated good character.

All proceedings and documents in Hamm’s case were sealed at his request early in the process, but Chief Justice Charles E. Jones unsealed the case file without explanation. Mr. Jones also granted the committee a time extension on filing its response to Hamm’s appeal to mid-February.

Those weighing in for or against Hamm’s application included the State Bar of Arizona’s board of governors.

In a May 17, 2004 letter to the committee, then-President Pamela Treadwell-Rubin said the Bar would seek to disbar any lawyer who committed the crimes committed by Hamm.

“The ability to practice law is a privilege” that Hamm relinquished the moment he committed murder, Ms. Treadwell-Rubin wrote to the commission.

Several lawyers wrote letters in support of Hamm.

Attorney Ulises A. Ferragut Jr. of Phoenix wrote on Jan. 30, 2004, that his firm had employed Hamm as a paralegal for two years.

“His genuine desire and determination to seek atonement and overcome adversity is a shining tribute to the rehabilitative drive of the human spirit and a beacon of hope and inspiration for many,” Mr. Ferragut wrote.

Hamm’s quest to practice law has stirred controversy before. His admission to the law college prompted some alumni to complain, and the college later backed off its intention to make him a part-time faculty member.

Attorneys are considered court officers, and it is up to the state Supreme Court — overseer of the state’s court system — to decide whether Hamm can practice law.

Most applicants are cleared without a hearing, but rules require one for applicants convicted of a violent crime. —