Law school graduates not only have to pass the bar in order to practice. They also have to pass a “moral character” inquiry—and, as part of that inquiry, many have to disclose sensitive information about their mental health. Bar examiners have long insisted that the disclosure of this information is necessary to ensure that would-be attorneys can practice competently and ethically. Yet critics have long countered that this inquiry is not only ineffective, it’s actively harmful, in that it deters law students from getting the help they need, perpetuates stigma, and potentially even violates federal law. In a new report, “Mental Health Screening in Lawyer Licensing,” Stanford Law School’s Graham Ambrose, JD ’24, Rhode Center Fellow Brianne Holland-Stergar, and Professor Nora Freeman Engstrom investigate how states screen bar applicants for mental health conditions. They find a profession in transition: While most states have stopped asking the terribly intrusive questions of yesteryear, the vast majority continue to ask about an applicant’s mental health challenges through more targeted inquiries. Here, Freeman Engstrom and Holland-Stergar discuss their key findings and how those findings implicate longstanding debates.