Opinion

In re Application of Reynolds

  • 127 Ohio St. 3d 331
  • 2010 Ohio 5947
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Dec 9, 2010
Status
Published
On the bench
Brown, Pfeifer, Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp
Cited by
1 cases
Authority
More cited than 66.2%

The opinion

[Cite as In re Application of Reynolds, 127 Ohio St.3d 331, 2010-Ohio-5947.]

IN RE APPLICATION OF REYNOLDS.

[Cite as In re Application of Reynolds, 127 Ohio St.3d 331, 2010-Ohio-5947.]

Attorneys — Character and fitness — Application to register as a candidate for

admission to the bar — Application disapproved, with permission to

reapply.

(No. 2010-1358 — Submitted September 28, 2010 — Decided

December 9, 2010.)

ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and

Fitness of the Supreme Court, No. 431.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} In 2008, Steven Todd Reynolds of Lebanon, Ohio, applied for

permission to register as a candidate for admission to the practice of law in Ohio

and to take the bar examination. The Admissions Committee of the Warren

County Bar Association conducted an investigation of his character and fitness.

The committee made an unfavorable recommendation, and Reynolds appealed.

See Gov.Bar R. I(12).

{¶ 2} A formal hearing on the matter was scheduled for February 12,

2010, before a three-member panel of the Board of Commissioners on Character

and Fitness, but it was canceled at the request of the applicant. The matter was

later rescheduled for June 11, 2010, but the applicant failed to appear at the

hearing.

{¶ 3} Based upon the applicant’s failure to attend the hearing, the panel

unanimously found that the applicant had failed to cooperate in the character and

fitness process and had failed to meet his burden of proving that he has the

requisite character and fitness to be permitted to sit for the Ohio bar exam. The

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

panel, therefore, recommended that his application be denied until he has

cooperated with the board and a full hearing regarding his character and fitness

has been conducted.

{¶ 4} The board concurred in the panel’s recommendation that the

applicant be disapproved. The board also recommended that the applicant be

permitted to reapply for admission to the practice of law in Ohio by filing a new

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

application to take the bar examination.

{¶ 5} Based upon the foregoing, we accept the board’s recommendation

to disapprove the applicant’s pending application. The applicant may apply to

take a future bar exam, provided that he submits a new application to register as a

candidate for admission to the practice of law and an application to take the bar

examination and cooperates with a complete character and fitness investigation,

including an investigation and report by the National Conference of Bar

Examiners, so that we may determine whether he possesses the requisite

character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to the practice of law in

Ohio.

Judgment accordingly.

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

O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur.

__________________

David E. Ernst, for the Warren County Bar Association.

______________________

2

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.