In re Application of Wilson

[Cite as In re Application of Wilson, 134 Ohio St.3d 168, 2012-Ohio-5480.]

IN RE APPLICATION OF WILSON.

[Cite as In re Application of Wilson, 134 Ohio St.3d 168, 2012-Ohio-5480.]

Attorneys—Character and fitness—Dishonesty, neglect of financial

responsibilities, and lack of diligence require disapproval of application

to take the bar exam—Applicant may apply to take the July 2014 bar

exam.

(No. 2012-0429—Submitted June 19, 2012—Decided November 29, 2012.)

ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and

Fitness of the Supreme Court, No. 498.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Eric Wilson of Cincinnati, Ohio, graduated from the University of

Dayton School of Law in May 2009. Wilson applied to register as a candidate for

admission to the Ohio bar and, on April 1, 2009, filed his application to take the

July 2009 bar exam, along with a supplemental character questionnaire. An

admissions committee of the Dayton Bar Association interviewed Wilson in June

2009 and in a July 2, 2009 letter, requested that Wilson provide additional

information relating to two areas of concern: (1) Wilson’s failure to disclose in

his 1992 application to the Detroit College of Law that he had been dismissed

from the Golden Gate University School of Law in 1988 for poor academic

performance and (2) Wilson’s default on his significant student-loan debt.

Although Wilson received the letter, he did not provide all of the information

requested by the committee. The committee did not approve his character and

fitness, and Wilson was not permitted to take the July 2009 exam.

{¶ 2} In December 2010, Wilson applied to take the February 2011 bar

exam and filed another supplemental character questionnaire. The admissions

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

committee interviewed him again in January 2011. Wilson did not provide the

information that the committee had requested in 2009, and the interview did not

go well. Citing Wilson’s default on his student loans, his dishonesty on his 1992

application to the Detroit College of Law, his failure to provide the

documentation previously requested by the committee, and his uncooperative

attitude toward the proceedings, the admissions committee disapproved Wilson’s

application based on his lack of character, fitness, and moral qualifications.

Wilson appealed to the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness. See

Gov.Bar R. I(12).

{¶ 3} Because Wilson’s attorney was unavailable, a July 2011 hearing

set by a panel of the board was rescheduled to November 2011. Following the

hearing, the panel issued a report expressing concerns about Wilson’s failure to

disclose on his application to the Detroit College of Law his dismissal from the

Golden Gate University School of Law, his failure to make any effort to pay his

student loans, his failure to hold a full-time job from August 2003 through

September 2011, and his lack of cooperation with the admissions process as well

as his lack of preparation for the hearing. Based upon those concerns, the panel

recommended that Wilson’s application be disapproved at this time. Although the

panel indicated that Wilson should be permitted to reapply as a candidate for

admission to the bar, it made no recommendation as to when he should be able to

do so.

{¶ 4} The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and

recommendation that Wilson’s application be disapproved and further

recommends that he be permitted to apply for the February 2016 bar examination.

{¶ 5} Wilson objects to the board’s report. While he does not challenge

the factual findings, except to argue that those findings are incomplete, he

contends that he has proved by clear and convincing evidence that he has the

2

January Term, 2012

requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications to be a member of the bar and

should therefore be permitted to take the next bar examination.

{¶ 6} First, Wilson points out that the false statements on his application

to the Detroit College of Law were made 20 years ago and that he made no effort

to conceal from the admissions committee or the board that he had made the false

statements. While this is true, during his initial character and fitness examination

in 2009, the admissions committee believed that Wilson was not being entirely

candid in explaining his failure to disclose his previous law-school experience.

On his application to register as a candidate for admission, he claimed that the

Detroit College of Law application stated that “any matriculation of 5 years or

older would not be counted.” The application had no such statement. The panel

also questioned the veracity of his claim that the omission was the result of his

rushing through the law-school application, given that as part of that application

he also submitted a personal statement that indicated that he had never before

applied to law school: “If I had had the foresight [sic] to see the importance that a

legal education could have, I might have applied for admission earlier. However,

I feel that any elapsed time that I may have lost has been more than offset by the

added maturity that I have gained since college.”

{¶ 7} Following the 2009 admissions-committee interview, the

committee requested documentation regarding his applications to other law

schools. Wilson received that request but did not comply, and he was aware that

his failure to provide the requested documentation resulted in the committee’s

disapproval of his application. Therefore, he was on notice that the requested

documents would be relevant to any subsequent assessment of his character and

fitness. Yet when he applied to take the February 2011 bar exam and appeared

for his character and fitness examination, he did not produce the requested

information. Nor did he comply with the panel’s request that he produce the

documents following the 2011 panel hearing.

3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 8} Regarding his student loans, Wilson never made a single payment

on the $32,300 in student loans that he had accumulated as an undergraduate at

the University of Cincinnati from 1980 through 1987 and as a first-year law

student at Golden Gate University School of Law from 1987 to 1988. He

admitted that when he discovered that the loans were not listed on his credit

report, he paid no attention to them and made no effort to pay them. Wilson also

accumulated four student loans totaling $120,000 to fund his legal education at

the University of Dayton School of Law. He testified that two of those loans,

with a total principal balance of approximately $60,000, are now in default and he

has no plans to begin repayment because he simply does not have the money.

Wilson’s claims that he is financially responsible are simply not credible in light

of his complete failure to address his default on his student loans. His default was

not a one-time event 25 years ago, as he claims; it is ongoing.

{¶ 9} Wilson’s claims that he has attempted to find full-time

employment at various points in the last ten years are likewise not true. Instead of

seeking steady employment to support himself and reduce his student-loan debt,

he has for much of his adult life elected to rely on his family to help him

financially while he worked seasonal jobs and ran—unsuccessfully—for public

office. His complete disregard of his financial obligations does not inspire

confidence that he is worthy of “the trust of clients, adversaries, courts, and others

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

Moreover, Wilson’s failure to prepare for the panel hearing that would determine

the fate of his legal career left him unaware that he bore the burden of proving by

clear and convincing evidence that he possessed the requisite character, fitness,

and moral qualifications for admission to the practice of law.

{¶ 10} Based upon these facts, we find that the record manifests

significant deficiencies in Wilson’s honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, and

4

January Term, 2012

reliability that warrant disapproval of his application at this time. See Gov.Bar R.

I(11)(D)(3). Therefore, we disapprove Wilson’s application at this time.

{¶ 11} The board recommends that Wilson be permitted to apply for the

February 2016 bar exam. Wilson objects, arguing that such a lengthy delay will

further exacerbate his financial difficulties and prevent him from fully addressing

his financial obligations.

{¶ 12} In order to be a viable candidate for admission to the bar in the

future, Wilson must maintain full-time employment, devise a strategy to satisfy

his significant debt, and fully cooperate in the admissions process. While

obtaining his license to practice law may be part of his long-range plan, he must

first demonstrate that he has accepted responsibility for his past actions, that he is

committed to honoring his financial obligations, and that he is capable of

exercising good judgment.

{¶ 13} Accordingly, we disapprove Wilson’s current application, but we

permit him to apply for the July 2014 bar examination by submitting a new

application to register as a candidate for admission to the bar and an application to

take the bar examination. At that time, he shall submit to a full character and

fitness investigation by the appropriate bar association admissions committee.

Judgment accordingly.

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

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

__________________

Omar Tarazi, for applicant.

Bieser, Greer & Landis, L.L.P., and Gretchen M. Treherne, for Dayton

Bar Association.

______________________

5