In re Application of Zimmerman

[Cite as In re Application of Zimmerman, 134 Ohio St.3d 268, 2012-Ohio-5644.]

IN RE APPLICATION OF ZIMMERMAN.

[Cite as In re Application of Zimmerman,

134 Ohio St.3d 268, 2012-Ohio-5644.]

Attorneys—Character and fitness—Unresponsive bar-exam answers and mental-

health issues require disapproval of application to take the bar exam—

Applicant may apply to take the July 2014 bar exam.

(No. 2012-0428—Submitted May 9, 2012—Decided December 5, 2012.)

ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and

Fitness of the Supreme Court, No. 518.

____________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Brenda Michelle Zimmerman of Dayton, Ohio, is a 2011 graduate

of the University of Dayton School of Law and has applied as a candidate for

admission to the bar. On the recommendation of the admissions committee of the

Dayton Bar Association, the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness

approved Zimmerman’s character and fitness and permitted her to take the July

2011 bar exam. Zimmerman did not pass the bar exam, and based on her

unresponsive answers to the bar-exam questions, the Board of Bar Examiners

expressed concern about her fitness to practice law.

{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness exercised

its power to sua sponte investigate Zimmerman’s character, fitness, and moral

qualifications. See Gov.Bar R. I(10)(B)(2)(e). Having reviewed Zimmerman’s

bar-exam answers and heard her testimony, a panel of the board recommended

that her character, fitness, and moral qualifications be disapproved, but that she be

permitted to reapply for the July 2013 bar exam. The panel would condition her

ability to reapply on her submission to a mental-health evaluation by a licensed

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

psychiatrist or psychologist selected by the board, demonstration of a period of

sustained compliance with any treatment recommendations, submission of a new

application to register as a candidate for admission to the practice of law, and

completion of a new character and fitness examination, including a new National

Conference of Bar Examiners (“NCBE”) background investigation.

{¶ 3} The board adopted the panel’s findings of facts and

recommendations. We, in turn, adopt the board’s findings of fact and

recommendations, but will not permit Zimmerman to reapply until the July 2014

bar exam.

Summary of the Proceedings

{¶ 4} Zimmerman did not pass the July 2011 bar exam because her

answers were not responsive to the questions. Instead of analyzing the fact

patterns presented in the exam, Zimmerman expounded upon God, her religion,

and her belief that the United States and the legal system have strayed from the

laws of God and defiled his name.

{¶ 5} At the hearing, Zimmerman testified that she no longer wants to

practice law. She stated that law school had opened her eyes and made her realize

that law is not a good career choice for her. She indicated that she does not like

the way that the country is being run and expressed great displeasure with the

decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Kelo v. New London, 545

U.S. 469, 125 S.Ct. 2655, 162 L.Ed.2d 439 (2005), which allowed a city to take

private property by eminent domain for economic-development purposes.

{¶ 6} Zimmerman testified that she is currently unemployed and has

approximately $223,000 in student loans that she cannot pay. She acknowledged

that she had spoken to the dean of her law school, who recommended that she

seek help from the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”), but she stated

that the thought of talking to someone at OLAP scared her. Her testimony was

rambling at times, touching on random issues like cloud seeding, biological-

2

January Term, 2012

warfare testing that has been performed on this country’s military personnel, the

Bay of Pigs invasion, and the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert

Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr.

{¶ 7} When Zimmerman was asked whether she was, or had ever been,

on medication, she indicated that she does not take any medications. Though she

admitted that a counselor had once prescribed Paxil and Trazodone, she reported

that she did not like the medications and stopped taking them after one week

because “[n]o one needs a permanent smile on their face that hurts.” She did not

feel that a past counseling effort had been helpful, and she indicated that she has

deeply buried childhood trauma that should remain buried.

{¶ 8} Zimmerman reported that she had never before answered exam

questions in the manner that she answered her bar-exam questions. She said that

either the night before or the morning of the exam, the signs were there and led

her to answer the questions in that manner and that this was the first time she had

“put God down on a piece of paper.” She reported that she prayed very hard and

tried to communicate with God and Jesus because she did not want to write these

answers and throw away the time and effort that she had put into law school, but

that the Lord forbade her to practice law.

{¶ 9} The panel expressed sympathy for Zimmerman’s long-held desire

to practice law and the struggles that she endured to obtain her undergraduate,

master’s, and law degrees, but recognized that her mental-health issues and her

attitude are huge obstacles in her path. Although it recommended that we

disapprove her pending application, it recognized that Zimmerman may one day

be able to demonstrate that she possesses the requisite character, fitness, and

moral qualifications to practice law. Therefore, it recommended that she be

permitted to reapply for the July 2013 or a later bar exam, provided that she

submit to a mental-health evaluation by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist

selected by the board, demonstrate a period of sustained compliance with any

3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

treatment recommendations, submit a new application to register as a candidate

for admission to the practice of law, and complete a new character and fitness

examination, including an NCBE background investigation.

Disposition

{¶ 10} An applicant to the Ohio bar must prove by clear and convincing

evidence that he or she “possesses the requisite character, fitness, and moral

qualifications for admission to the practice of law.” Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(1). The

applicant’s record must justify “the trust of clients, adversaries, courts, and others

with respect to the professional duties owed to them.” Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3).

{¶ 11} Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3) and (4) provide nonexhaustive lists of

factors that the admissions committee and the board must consider before making

a recommendation concerning an applicant’s character, fitness, and moral

qualifications. One of the factors to be considered is whether there is “[e]vidence

of mental or psychological disorder that in any way affects or, if untreated, could

affect the applicant’s ability to practice law in a competent and professional

manner.” Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3)(e).

{¶ 12} Zimmerman’s performance on the July 2011 bar exam and her

testimony at the panel hearing are evidence that a mental or psychological

disorder is present. Her inability to analyze and cogently address the bar-exam

questions to further her own career objectives raises serious issues about her

ability to analyze her clients’ problems, research the applicable law, and advocate

for her clients in a competent and professional manner. Therefore, we adopt the

board’s finding that Zimmerman has failed to prove that she currently possesses

the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to the

practice of law in Ohio as well as the recommendation that we disapprove her

pending application.

{¶ 13} However, we believe that allowing Zimmerman to reapply for the

July 2013 bar exam will not allow her sufficient time to obtain a mental-health

4

January Term, 2012

evaluation and demonstrate a period of sustained compliance with treatment

recommendations. We will, however, permit Zimmerman to reapply for the July

2014 bar examination.

{¶ 14} Accordingly, we disapprove Zimmerman’s pending application

and will permit her to reapply for the July 2014 or a later bar exam, provided that

she submit to a mental-health evaluation by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist

selected by the board, demonstrate a period of sustained compliance with any

treatment recommendations, submit a new application to register as a candidate

for admission to the practice of law, and complete a new character and fitness

examination, including an NCBE background investigation.

Judgment accordingly.

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL,

LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.

____________________

Brenda Michelle Zimmerman, pro se.

Faruki, Ireland & Cox, P.L.L., and James W. Pauley III, for the Dayton

Bar Association.

_________________________

5