For what it's worth, the suggested path is likely somewhere in the middle. Here's why:
Bar examiners are charged with assessing the moral competency of applicants to sit for the bar exam. Okay, now that the laughter has died down, they are charged with actually assessing these qualities.
One way they do this is by demanding disclosure of ANY fact that might bear on this issue. Among those are criminal transgressions. Here's the real point: what they're (usually) looking for is not the transgression itself, but rather the disclosure, and the indications (positive or negative) that lessons were learned.
So, with most "youthful indiscretions" there's room for error. What there's not room for is omission, lying, obvious shading, or a lack of genuine repentance.
The initial post runs several risks: it appears to shade the crime as a bit too much the Good (if misunderstood) Samaritan; it then punts with regard to the attorney's actions and gets a bit too caught up in the legal procedure [bar examiners are almost always attorneys, so don't try to show them what you know of procedure]; and it doesn't convincingly state the lessons learned.
The suggested re-write is likely too little, and would raise questions and result in follow-up. (Not good.)
So, think about this not from your perspective, but from the bar examiners'. They need to be sure that they're not letting a future thug into the bar. Think about what you would need to hear from someone who's done something foolish to believe that they had indeed learned their lesson.
Discussion
Resources
