In Re Application of Jia

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as In

re Application of Jia, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-468.]

NOTICE

This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an

advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to

promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65

South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other

formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before

the opinion is published.

SLIP OPINION NO. 2016-OHIO-468

IN RE APPLICATION OF JIA.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it

may be cited as In re Application of Jia, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-468.]

Attorneys—Application for admission to the practice of law—Character and

fitness—Violation of bar-exam rules by continuing to write after time is

called—Application disapproved; reapplication permitted.

(No. 2015-0538—Submitted June 10, 2015—Decided February 11, 2016.)

ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and

Fitness of the Supreme Court, No. 613.

___________________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Lingyu Jia of Columbus, Ohio, is a 2013 graduate of the Case Western

Reserve University School of Law and has applied as a candidate for admission to

the Ohio bar. On the recommendation of the admissions committee of the

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

approved Jia’s character and fitness and permitted her to take the July 2014 bar

exam.

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

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

investigated Jia’s character, fitness, and moral qualifications after the Board of Bar

Examiners found that she had violated bar-exam rules by filling in one or more

answers on the Multistate Bar Exam (“MBE”) after time was called during each of

the morning and afternoon sessions on July 30, 2014. Despite a penalty imposed

for her misconduct by the Board of Bar Examiners, Jia passed the bar exam.

{¶ 3} After hearing Jia’s testimony and considering the evidence adduced

at a panel hearing, a panel of the character-and-fitness board recommended that we

disapprove Jia’s character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to the bar

at this time but that she be permitted to submit an applicant’s affidavit and a

completed supplemental character questionnaire on or after May 1, 2016. The

panel further recommended that Jia be sworn in as an attorney if the board

determines that the affidavit and questionnaire reflect no further character and

fitness issues. The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and recommendation.

{¶ 4} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and disapprove Jia’s character,

fitness, and moral qualifications and her application for admission to the bar at this

time but will permit her to seek admission on or after May 1, 2016.

Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 5} Jia applied and sat for the July 2014 bar exam. On the second day of

the exam, the MBE portion, the day was divided into a morning session and an

afternoon session. During each session, the applicants were provided with 100

multiple-choice questions, for which they were to fill in a bubble on the provided

answer sheet.

{¶ 6} The applicants were seated two to a table, diagonally positioned with

one applicant on each side of the table. As the morning session wound down, and

consistent with the written and verbal instructions provided to all applicants, the

director of the Office of Bar Admissions gave a warning five minutes before the

session was to end. Jia received, heard, and understood the instructions. But when

2

January Term, 2016

the bar-exam official gave the stop command, Jia continued to fill in bubbles after

time was called.

{¶ 7} The male applicant sitting at an adjacent table to the left of and facing

Jia testified that he looked over and observed Jia fill in about three bubbles after

time was called. He did not immediately report his observation to a proctor, though

he did ask a female applicant at his table—whom he did not know prior to the

exam—if she had observed Jia writing after the command to stop. She replied that

she had not. Jia does not dispute that she continued to write after time was called

at the end of the morning session, but she testified that she filled in just one bubble.

{¶ 8} During the afternoon session, the bar-exam official once again gave a

five-minute warning before the end of the session. Five minutes later, she

instructed the applicants to stop writing and place their materials in the upper-left-

hand corner of the table. Because of the conversation between the male and female

applicants at the adjacent table following the morning session, the two applicants

looked in Jia’s direction to see if she would again write after time was called. Both

of the applicants at the adjacent table testified that Jia filled in one bubble after time

was called. The next morning, the female applicant advised a proctor of her

observations. Jia testified that she was certain that she did not write past the allotted

time during the afternoon session.

{¶ 9} The third and final day of the bar exam was a morning-only session

consisting of six essay questions that were distributed two at a time. The applicants

were permitted to type their answers to the essay questions using a laptop computer

program.

{¶ 10} Because the female applicant reported her observations the previous

day, Rosey White, a 13-year employee of the Office of Bar Admissions and a

proctor for the exam, approached Jia’s table at the end of the time allotted for the

first two essay questions. According to White’s testimony, after the instruction to

exit the program had been given, she observed that Jia did not remove her hands

3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

from the keyboard and let them hover over it as if she were going to continue

typing—but she did not continue to type. White approached Jia, placed her hand

on Jia’s shoulder or desk, and gave her a command to stop. After receiving the

verbal command, Jia removed her hands from the keyboard and then exited the

essay program. Neither the adjacent applicants nor the proctor observed Jia typing

past the allotted time in either of the remaining essay sessions.

{¶ 11} Following the bar exam, the male applicant sent an e-mail to the

director of the Office of Bar Admissions advising her of his observations. His

report triggered an investigation by the office and the Board of Bar Examiners.

{¶ 12} A panel of the Board of Bar Examiners conducted a hearing on

September 19, 2014, and heard testimony from Jia, both applicants at the adjacent

table, the other applicant who was seated at Jia’s table, and the proctor who

observed Jia on the third day of the exam. Based on that testimony, the panel found

that Jia knowingly violated bar-exam rules by filling in one or more answers on the

MBE after time was called at both the morning and afternoon sessions but that there

was insufficient evidence to conclude that she violated any rule on the third day of

the bar exam. The panel also noted that Jia expressed remorse and apologized to

the board for her actions.

{¶ 13} The Board of Bar Examiners adopted the panel report and imposed

a 16.7-percent penalty on the MBE portion of Jia’s exam—a sanction comparable

to those imposed on applicants who had been determined to have written after time

was called on an essay question. Even with that penalty, Jia’s score was high

enough to pass the bar exam, but the Board of Bar Examiners referred the matter to

the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness for further review.

{¶ 14} At the character-and-fitness panel hearing, Jia and the applicants

from the adjacent table gave testimony largely consistent with their testimony

before the Board of Bar Examiners. The panel found the testimony of the applicants

from the adjacent table to be credible but could not determine whether Jia’s

4

January Term, 2016

testimony was intentionally inaccurate or whether her recollection of the events was

clouded by the stress of taking the bar exam. Consistent with the conclusion of the

Board of Bar Examiners, the character-and-fitness panel determined that Jia

continued to write after time was called on two separate occasions on the second

day of the bar exam and that she had, therefore, failed to prove that she currently

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

the practice of law in Ohio.

{¶ 15} Consequently, the panel recommended that we disapprove Jia’s

pending application to be admitted to the Ohio bar. The panel further recommended

that Jia be permitted to submit an applicant’s affidavit and a newly completed

supplemental character questionnaire on or after May 1, 2016, and that Jia be sworn

in as an attorney if the board determines that those documents reflect no further

character and fitness issues. The Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness

adopted the panel’s recommendation in its entirety.

Disposition

{¶ 16} 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 “justif[y] the trust of clients, adversaries, courts, and others

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

record manifesting a significant deficiency in the honesty, trustworthiness,

diligence, or reliability of an applicant may constitute a basis for disapproval of the

applicant.” Id.

{¶ 17} Applicants must establish the ability to exercise good judgment in

conducting their professional business affairs; the ability to conduct themselves

with a high degree of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness in their professional

relationships and with respect to all legal obligations; the ability to conduct

themselves with respect for and in accordance with the law and the Ohio Rules of

5

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Professional Conduct; the ability to comply with deadlines and time constraints;

and the ability to conduct themselves professionally and in a manner that engenders

respect for the law and the profession. Supreme Court of Ohio, Definitions of

Essential Eligibility Requirements for the Practice of Law,

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/AttySvcs/admissions/pdf/ESSENTIAL_ELIG

IBILITY_REQUIREMENTS.pdf (accessed Dec. 29, 2015) (Nos. 3, 4, 5, 9, and

10). Because the evidence shows that Jia continued to write after time was called

on two separate occasions during the bar exam, we agree that she has failed to

satisfy her burden.

{¶ 18} Accordingly, we adopt the character-and-fitness board’s finding that

in light of her conduct during the bar exam, Jia has failed to prove that she currently

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

the practice of law in Ohio. Consequently, we disapprove Jia’s application at this

time. However, Jia may submit an applicant’s affidavit and a newly completed

supplemental character questionnaire to the Office of Bar Admissions on or after

May 1, 2016, and if those documents reveal no further character and fitness issues,

Jia may be sworn in as a member of the Ohio bar.

Judgment accordingly.

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY,

FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur.

_________________

Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter, L.P.A., and Jonathan E. Coughlan, for

applicant.

Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., and Michael R. Thomas, for

Columbus Bar Association.

_________________

6