# In re Application of Daubenmire

> Ohio Supreme Court · June 12, 2024 · 176 Ohio St. 3d 600

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11147613

## Case

- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 12, 2024
- **Citations:** 176 Ohio St. 3d 600; 249 N.E.3d 54; 2024 Ohio 2230
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Per Curiam
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11147613

## Opinion text

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 176 Ohio St.3d 600.]

IN RE APPLICATION OF DAUBENMIRE.
[Cite as In re Application of Daubenmire, 2024-Ohio-2230.]
Attorneys—Character and fitness—Applications to register as candidate for
admission to practice of law in Ohio and as candidate to take July 2024
Ohio bar exam—Past criminal conduct—Applicant has established present
character, fitness, and moral qualifications by clear and convincing
evidence—Applications approved.
(No. 2024-0405—Submitted May 7, 2024—Decided June 12, 2024.)
ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness of the
Supreme Court, No. 877.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} Applicant, Zachary Charles Daubenmire, of Thornville, Ohio, is a
2011 graduate of Case Western Reserve University School of Law. In November
2013, we found that Daubenmire failed to carry his burden of proving that he
possessed the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications to practice law
in Ohio because of his 2007 felony conviction for pandering obscenity involving a
minor and his continuing duty to register as a sexually oriented offender until
February 2017. In re Application of Daubenmire, 137 Ohio St.3d 435, 2013-Ohio-
4977, 999 N.E.2d 669, ¶ 1-3, 19-20. We therefore disapproved his application to
register as a candidate for admission to the practice of law and authorized him to
reapply as a candidate for the July 2018 bar exam. Id. at ¶ 3, 20.
{¶ 2} In November 2022, Daubenmire applied to register as a candidate for
admission to the practice of law in Ohio by completing a National Conference of
Bar Examiners questionnaire.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 3} Two members of the Licking County Bar Association Admissions
Committee interviewed Daubenmire in April 2023. In each of their reports to the
admissions committee, the interviewers stated that Daubenmire did not possess the
requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to the practice
of law. Specifically, the interviewers were concerned that Daubenmire tended to
minimize his criminal conduct and that he failed to appreciate that his felony
offense was not victimless. Citing several incidents that occurred from 2015
through 2017 and Daubenmire’s admission to drinking alcohol frequently, the
interviewers also expressed concern that Daubenmire exhibited signs of potential
alcohol abuse, a pattern of poor anger management, and a pattern of disregard for
Ohio laws. Based on the interviewers’ reports, the admissions committee issued a
final report recommending disapproval as to Daubenmire’s character, fitness, and
moral qualifications to practice law.
{¶ 4} Daubenmire appealed the committee’s recommendation to the Board
of Commissioners on Character and Fitness under Gov.Bar R. I(14). In January
2024, a three-member panel of the board conducted a hearing, during which it heard
testimony from Daubenmire and three other witnesses. Thereafter, the panel issued
a report finding that Daubenmire had established his present character, fitness, and
moral qualifications by clear and convincing evidence and recommending that his
application to register as a candidate for admission to the practice of law in Ohio
be approved. In March 2024, the board adopted the panel’s report and
recommendation by a ten-to-one vote. On June 3, 2024, the board filed a motion
to supplement the record with Daubenmire’s May 9, 2024 application to take the
July 2024 bar exam. No response was filed. We hereby grant that motion.
{¶ 5} The matter is before this court pursuant to Gov.Bar R. I(13)(D)(5)(a)
and (b), because Daubenmire’s conviction was for a second-degree felony under
Ohio law. Because we find that Daubenmire has established that he presently
possesses the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to

2
January Term, 2024

the practice of law in Ohio, we approve his pending registration application and
permit him to sit for the July 2024 bar exam.
Standard for Assessing an Applicant’s Character, Fitness, and
Moral Qualifications
{¶ 6} An applicant for admission to the bar bears the burden of proving by
clear and convincing evidence that the applicant possesses the requisite character,
fitness, and moral qualifications for admission. Gov.Bar R. I(13)(D)(1). An
applicant may be approved for admission if the applicant satisfies the essential
eligibility requirements for the practice of law as defined by the board and
demonstrates that “the applicant’s record of conduct justifies the trust of clients,
adversaries, courts, and others.” Gov.Bar R. I(13)(D)(3).
{¶ 7} A record that manifests a significant deficiency in the honesty,
trustworthiness, diligence, or reliability of an applicant may constitute a ground for
disapproval. Id. In determining whether the record demonstrates such a deficiency,
we consider a number of factors set forth in Gov.Bar R. I(13)(D)(3). Among those
factors are whether the applicant has been convicted of a felony or engaged in
conduct reflecting a pattern of disregard of the laws of this or any other state and
whether there is evidence of an existing and untreated drug or alcohol dependency.
Gov.Bar R. I(13)(D)(3)(a), (b), and (e). In determining the weight and significance
to give an applicant’s prior conduct, we consider several factors, including the
recency of the conduct, the seriousness of the conduct, the factors underlying the
conduct, whether there is evidence of rehabilitation, whether the applicant has made
positive social contributions since the conduct, and the candor of the applicant in
the admissions process. See Gov.Bar R. I(13)(D)(4)(b), (d), (e), (g), (h), and (i).
{¶ 8} In addition, when an applicant has been convicted of a felony, we
consider (1) the amount of time that has passed since the applicant’s conviction, (2)
whether the rights and privileges of the applicant that were forfeited by that
conviction have been restored by operation of law, expungement, or pardon under

3
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

the laws of Ohio, (3) whether the applicant is disqualified by law from holding an
office of public trust, and (4) how approval of the applicant would impact the
public’s perception of, or confidence in, the legal profession. See Gov.Bar R.
V(13)(D)(5)(a)(i) through (iv).
{¶ 9} We now turn to the four issues of concern in this case: Daubenmire’s
2007 felony conviction, his alcohol use, his anger-management issues, and his
alleged pattern of disregarding Ohio’s laws.
Daubenmire’s Felony Conviction
{¶ 10} In February 2007, Daubenmire was convicted of pandering
obscenity involving a minor in violation of R.C. 2907.321(A)(1) and/or (A)(6).
During his first character-and-fitness case in 2013, we found that Daubenmire had
been raised in a strict religious household and began looking at online pornography
while he was still in high school. Daubenmire, 137 Ohio St.3d 435, 2013-Ohio-
4977, 999 N.E.2d 669, at ¶ 5. While attending college in 2001, he began to
download pornographic pictures and videos of children. Id.
{¶ 11} At both his previous and 2024 character-and-fitness hearings,
Daubenmire testified that he was interested in viewing only teenage girls. He
admitted that many of the images he downloaded depicted girls under the age of
18, but he explained that some images showed even younger girls because he could
not always tell what he was downloading on the file-sharing applications he used
to obtain the images. He stated that if he saw images that depicted younger
children, he deleted them. He acknowledged that the file-sharing applications
allowed other users to access the images if they were stored in a shared folder on
his computer.
{¶ 12} Daubenmire’s illicit activity was discovered and reported to the
authorities in 2006 after his father took the computer that Daubenmire had been
using to a repair shop. Id. at ¶ 7. Daubenmire cooperated with the resulting
criminal investigation, and with the assistance of counsel, he entered a no-contest

4
January Term, 2024

plea. Id. He was sentenced to five years of community control and ordered to
register as a sexually oriented offender, perform 100 hours of community service,
participate in sexual-offender counseling, and abstain from alcohol. Id.
{¶ 13} Daubenmire complied with the conditions of his criminal sentence
and was granted early release from his community-control sanction in March 2009.
Except for the right to possess a firearm or dangerous ordnance, his rights as a
citizen of the United States of America and the state of Ohio were restored at that
time. In addition to completing a court-ordered sexual-offender counseling
program, Daubenmire voluntarily engaged in additional sexual-health counseling
for about two years after his release from community control. He also complied
with his ten-year obligation to register as a sexually oriented offender, which
terminated in 2017.
{¶ 14} At his 2024 character-and-fitness hearing, Daubenmire testified with
candor about what he had learned from his years of sexual-offender and sexual-
health counseling. The board found that he had gained valuable knowledge about
himself and the reasons that he had sought out pornographic images depicting
teenage girls. His sexual-health therapist opined in a June 2012 letter to the Office
of Bar Admissions that Daubenmire’s interest in pornography “was not motivated
by a sexual deviance disorder or a psychological pathology. Rather, it was the
product of complicated sexual conflicts of a young man whose conservative
religious background suppressed normal sexual drive.”
{¶ 15} The board found that in his testimony before the hearing panel,
Daubenmire made no attempts to minimize either the impact of his criminal
conduct on the children in the images he viewed or the seriousness of his crime.
He explained that any statements he made to the interviewers from the admissions
committee regarding his belief that he was not hurting anyone referred to his
mindset when he was downloading the illegal materials—and that it in no way
reflected his current mindset. He expressed his understanding that the children

5
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

depicted in those images were victims who were unable to consent and that even
though he was not buying or producing child pornography, his viewing of the
product alone contributed to their victimization.
{¶ 16} Applying the factors enumerated in Gov.Bar R. I(13)(D)(4) and (5),
we observe that it has been more than 17 years since Daubenmire was convicted of
pandering obscenity involving a minor. Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest
that he has engaged in any kind of sexual misconduct since his felony conviction.
Although Daubenmire remains under a weapons disability, the board found that his
other rights have been restored and that he is not disqualified by law from holding
an office of public trust.
{¶ 17} More than 15 years ago, Daubenmire received an early release from
his community-control sanction, and he has not been required to register as a
sexually oriented offender for more than six years. Although his crime was
reprehensible, the potential negative impact that our approval of Daubenmire’s
application might have on the public’s perception of the legal profession has
decreased with his successful completion of the terms of his criminal sentence, his
years of psychological counseling, and the passage of time—all of which point to
his successful rehabilitation. See Gov.Bar R. I(13)(D)(5)(a)(iv). On these facts,
the board found, and we agree, that Daubenmire’s 2007 felony conviction should
not disqualify him from admission to the practice of law.
Daubenmire’s Alcohol Use
{¶ 18} The record shows that Daubenmire has crossed paths with law-
enforcement officers on three occasions since his 2007 felony conviction, two of
which resulted in convictions of minor misdemeanors—only one of which involved
the inappropriate use of alcohol. Based on that alcohol-related offense and
Daubenmire’s statements about his drinking habits, the interviewers from the
admissions committee suggested that he may be dependent on alcohol.

6
January Term, 2024

{¶ 19} At his 2024 character-and-fitness hearing, Daubenmire testified that
on July 25, 2017, he was drinking a can of beer in his parked car on private property
while playing Pokémon Go (an electronic game in which players go to different
locations to play the game on their cellphones). He intended to drink one beer while
playing and then drive to his parents’ home, where he was dog sitting. He stated
that he did not realize that it was illegal to consume alcohol in a parked car on
private property and that he had consumed only a couple sips of beer before a police
officer approached his vehicle. He conceded that it was not smart to be drinking in
his car before driving, even though he was not impaired.
{¶ 20} The police report from that incident stated that Daubenmire had one
open can of beer in the center console of his car and a second unopened can in the
vehicle. The officer did not suspect alcohol impairment or perform a breathalyzer
or field-sobriety test on Daubenmire, and he did not charge Daubenmire with
physical control or operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Instead, the officer
charged Daubenmire with a minor-misdemeanor offense of having an open
container of alcohol in a stationary motor vehicle under Hebron Codified
Ordinances 529.07(b)(5). Daubenmire paid a fine, thereby admitting his guilt. He
has no history of any other alcohol-related traffic or criminal charges.
{¶ 21} During his 2023 character-and-fitness interview, Daubenmire also
disclosed to the interviewers that he often drank a “tallboy” beer (i.e., a beer larger
than the standard 12-ounce can) before bed to help him sleep. At his 2024
character-and-fitness hearing, Daubenmire testified that after the interviewers
expressed their concerns about his alcohol use, he stopped consuming beer before
going to bed and sought healthier ways to help him fall asleep. He explained that
it had been important for him to get to sleep at a reasonable time because he and
his wife were getting up multiple times a night to care for their two daughters who,
at that time, were both under the age of two.

7
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 22} In light of the interviewers’ concerns, Daubenmire testified that
before the 2024 character-and-fitness hearing, he submitted to an alcohol
assessment conducted by Trevor C. Davis, a licensed social worker and chemical-
dependency counselor. Davis issued a report in which he found that Daubenmire’s
self-described drinking habits were “within or near” low-risk guidelines established
by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and the National
Institutes of Health. Davis identified some factors for Daubenmire’s risk profile,
including elevated stress, mental-health issues, his legal history consisting of the
single open-container case, and general demographics—taking into account the fact
that attorneys are at an elevated risk for alcohol- and substance-abuse issues when
compared to the general population. Davis determined, however, that Daubenmire
did not have an existing alcohol-use disorder.
{¶ 23} In addition to these facts, Daubenmire presented testimony at his
2024 character-and-fitness hearing from his employer, attorney Roger Weaver,
who stated that he had never observed Daubenmire impaired, with alcohol on his
breath, or hung over at work. Another attorney, a realtor, and a title-company
employee, each of whom have worked in the same building as Daubenmire,
submitted affidavits stating that they had seen Daubenmire at work on a daily (or
almost daily) basis and that they had never seen any evidence that he had used or
was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at work.
{¶ 24} Applying the factors enumerated in Gov.Bar R. I(13)(D)(4), we
observe that it has been nearly seven years since Daubenmire’s open-container
conviction and he has had no other citations for alcohol-related conduct. And after
the interviewers from the admissions committee expressed concern about his habit
of drinking a beer to help him sleep, Daubenmire stopped engaging in that conduct
and sought an alcohol-use assessment, which resulted in a professional’s
determination that Daubenmire does not have an alcohol-use disorder. Moreover,
Daubenmire has presented evidence showing that his alcohol consumption has had

8
January Term, 2024

no impact on his work. The board found, and we agree, that Daubenmire has
presented clear and convincing evidence that his alcohol use is not a character-and-
fitness issue that should result in disapproval of his pending application.
Anger Management and Alleged Pattern of Disregarding Laws
{¶ 25} Lastly, the interviewers from the admissions committee suggested
that Daubenmire’s felony conviction for pandering obscenity involving a minor,
open-container conviction, and a disorderly-conduct conviction show that he has
engaged in a pattern of disregarding the laws of this state. The interviewers also
claimed that Daubenmire’s “cumulative conduct,” which includes three incidents
concerning his anger management—a bar fight, an argument with his cousin, and
the disorderly-conduct offense—could affect his ability to conduct himself in a
manner that engenders respect for the law and the profession. Each of these three
incidents are discussed in turn.
{¶ 26} On November 22, 2015, Daubenmire called the Hebron Police
Department to report that three men had assaulted him at a bar near his home.
According to the police report, Daubenmire told police that he entered the bar after
the Ohio State University football team had lost a game and that to tease his
acquaintances at the bar, he said, “How about them Buckeyes?” He stated that
sometime thereafter, a man approached him and asked if he was a registered sex
offender. Daubenmire claimed that after he answered that question in the
affirmative, the man got mad, stated that he had a child, and then grabbed
Daubenmire and took him to the ground. Daubenmire further stated that he was
then punched and kicked by that man and two others until other people stepped in
to break up the fight.
{¶ 27} According to the police report, one of the men admitted that he had
asked Daubenmire if he was a sex offender but told the officer that Daubenmire
had elbowed him in the stomach before he took Daubenmire to the ground in self-
defense. The two other men purportedly involved in the incident told police that

9
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

they never touched Daubenmire. No charges were filed against Daubenmire or any
of the three men over the incident.
{¶ 28} During his 2023 character-and-fitness interview and at his 2024
hearing, Daubenmire also described an incident in which he and his cousin got into
a shouting match on a golf course sometime in 2016. He testified that there was no
violence and that his father stepped in to calm him and his cousin down.
{¶ 29} On October 15, 2016, at a Dollar General store, Daubenmire
attempted to return or exchange a pair of earbuds that did not work. The store clerk
called the Hebron Police Department and reported that Daubenmire got mad when
she would not accept the return without a receipt, cursed at her, and threw the
earbuds at her face. She stated that the earbuds struck her, and the officer who
responded to the call observed a scratch on the right side of her face. Daubenmire
told the officer that he had ripped up the earbuds and threw them into the air before
leaving the store.
{¶ 30} The officer reviewed the surveillance video of the incident and
reported that “it was clear that Mr. Daubenmire intentionally threw the [earbuds] at
the victim resulting in the scratch to her face.” Although Daubenmire was charged
with misdemeanor assault and disorderly conduct, the prosecuting attorney
dismissed the assault charge. Daubenmire pleaded guilty to the disorderly-conduct
charge, a minor-misdemeanor offense.
{¶ 31} At his 2024 character-and-fitness hearing, Daubenmire testified that
he and the store clerk had shouted at each other after the clerk refused to allow him
to exchange the earbuds without a receipt. He stated that he tore up the earbuds
and threw them in the air. Daubenmire admitted that he was a “complete jerk,” but
he denied assaulting the clerk or throwing the earbuds at her. He said that he
believed the prosecutor had dismissed the assault charge after determining that it
was not supported by the evidence.

10
January Term, 2024

{¶ 32} The hearing panel reviewed the store’s security video of the incident
and found that it corroborated Daubenmire’s version of events because (1) his
throwing motion appeared to be directed upward, (2) the clerk did not react as
though she had been struck, and (3) the earbuds appeared to land on the ground on
Daubenmire’s side of the counter.
{¶ 33} During his testimony at the 2024 hearing, Daubenmire expressed
remorse about the Dollar General incident and admitted that his behavior was
unacceptable. More importantly, he explained that after the incident, he recognized
that he had anger issues and voluntarily sought mental-health counseling to address
them. Daubenmire testified that he completed one and a half to two years of
counseling, during which he learned tools and strategies to appropriately deal with
his anger before it reached the point of boiling over.
{¶ 34} There was no evidence presented at the 2024 hearing that
Daubenmire had engaged in any other angry outbursts since the incident with the
store clerk in October 2016—a period of more than seven years—or committed any
alcohol-related offenses since his July 2017 open-container offense.1 Furthermore,
Daubenmire testified that he did not register to take the bar exam in 2018—when
he was eligible to do so under our prior order—because he knew that he needed to
address his anger-management issues and demonstrate to this court that he was past
them.
{¶ 35} In addition, Daubenmire testified that he and his wife have been
participating in couple’s counseling to deal with the stressors associated with two

1. Daubenmire filed a supplemental disclosure with the office of bar admissions in December 2023,
in which he stated that on November 30, 2023, he had been cited for failure to restrain a child. At
his 2024 character-and-fitness hearing, Daubenmire testified that he took his oldest daughter for a
drive that evening to help her fall asleep and that he was pulled over after he had swerved while
trying to reach for a glass of milk that she had thrown. He stated that he was cited for failure to
restrain his daughter because she does not like to be restrained and had wiggled the car-seat straps
down below her shoulders. Daubenmire did not contest the charge and paid a fine. The board made
no mention of this incident in its report, and we find that it has no bearing on his current fitness to
practice law.

11
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

working parents caring for two young children, and he explained that the counseling
has been helpful. The board noted that since his arrest in 2007, Daubenmire has
demonstrated a pattern of seeking mental-health treatment when needed,
committing himself to that treatment for significant periods, and learning how to
improve his problematic behavior.
{¶ 36} At Daubenmire’s 2024 character-and-fitness hearing, Attorney
Weaver testified that he had known Daubenmire’s family for many years and that
Daubenmire had worked full-time in his office since about 2012. He stated that he
was aware of Daubenmire’s felony conviction and that Daubenmire had openly
shared and discussed the above-described incidents with him. Weaver believed that
Daubenmire has benefitted from counseling and matured with the passage of time
and by becoming a husband and father. He testified that Daubenmire maintained a
professional demeanor at work and that he found no reason to believe that
Daubenmire has any current anger-management issues that would affect his ability
to conduct himself competently, ethically, or professionally. Not only did Weaver
express his opinion that Daubenmire currently possesses the character and fitness
necessary to practice law in Ohio, but he also testified that he intends to employ
him as an attorney if he is able to take and pass the bar exam.
{¶ 37} The board acknowledged that Daubenmire’s disorderly-conduct
conviction, the alleged bar assault, and his public argument with his cousin may
have raised significant concerns had he submitted a registration application in 2018.
Citing Daubenmire’s evidence—including his voluntary completion of almost two
years of mental-health counseling to address his anger-management issues and the
passage of more than seven years with no further incidents related to anger
management—the board concluded that the incidents from 2015 through 2016 that
raised concerns about Daubenmire’s anger management are “not weighty enough
to be disqualifying” now. We agree with the board’s assessment regarding
Daubenmire’s anger management, and we also find that Daubenmire’s felony

12
January Term, 2024

conviction combined with his two minor-misdemeanor convictions do not
constitute a pattern of disregard of the law sufficient to warrant disapproval of
Daubenmire’s application, compare In re Application of Dickens, 106 Ohio St.3d
128, 2005-Ohio-4097, 832 N.E.2d 725, ¶ 4-7, 15 (applicant’s long history of
criminal and traffic convictions combined with multiple court-ordered evictions
demonstrated a pattern of disregard for the laws of this and other states that
contributed to disapproval of his bar-exam application); In re Application of Kapel,
72 Ohio St.3d 532, 532-533, 651 N.E.2d 955 (1995) (applicant’s disorderly-
conduct conviction and sustained pattern of disregarding traffic laws demonstrated
that he lacked the requisite character and fitness to practice law).
Disposition
{¶ 38} At present, it has been more than 17 years since Daubenmire was
convicted of pandering obscenity involving a minor, more than 15 years since he
was released from community control, and more than seven years since he was
required to register as a sexually oriented offender. And there is no evidence that
he has engaged in any kind of sexually inappropriate behavior since the pandering-
obscenity conviction. It has also been more than seven years since Daubenmire’s
angry outburst toward a store clerk resulted in a minor-misdemeanor disorderly-
conduct conviction and almost seven years since his open-container conviction.
{¶ 39} Daubenmire has testified candidly about each of the incidents
discussed above and acknowledged the wrongfulness of his conduct. He
participated in several years of mental-health counseling to address his sexually
oriented misconduct and voluntarily sought and committed himself to almost two
years of additional mental-health treatment to address his subsequent anger-
management issues. And most recently, he has participated in marital counseling
with his wife to help with managing the everyday stresses of marriage and parenting
two young children. He has demonstrated his growth and maturation through his
willingness to seek help when his stress begins to affect his mental health. He also

13
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

wisely delayed his second application to register as a candidate for the bar exam
until he was able to demonstrate that his anger-management issues had been under
control for an extended period. Moreover, in his sworn application to take the July
2024 bar exam, Daubenmire answered “no” to all questions about various types of
conduct or actions that could have been taken against him since he filed his
registration application. He has therefore indicated that he has no new information,
conduct, or behavior to report that could call into question his ability to practice
law in a competent, ethical, and professional manner.
{¶ 40} In addition, Daubenmire has found a dedicated mentor in Weaver
and demonstrated his commitment to the profession by working competently,
diligently, and professionally as a law clerk at Weaver’s firm for about 12 years.
In short, Daubenmire has accepted responsibility for his past actions, has made
efforts to learn from those actions and avoid repeating them, and has successfully
demonstrated his rehabilitation.
{¶ 41} Upon consideration of the record and the applicable rules, we find
that Daubenmire has carried his burden of proving that he currently possesses the
requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to the practice
of law.
{¶ 42} Accordingly, we grant the motion of the board to supplement the
record, adopt the board’s report, approve Daubenmire’s pending application, and
permit him to sit for the July 2024 bar exam.
Judgment accordingly.
DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER, and DETERS, JJ., concur.
KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, J., dissent and would not allow Daubenmire
to take the July 2024 bar exam.
_________________
Richard D. Brown Law Office, L.L.C., and Richard D. Brown, for
applicant.

14
January Term, 2024

Reese Pyle Meyer, P.L.L., and Brian C. Reed, for the Licking County Bar
Association.
_________________

15

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11147613. Public record. Not legal advice.