Should this guy be permitted to EVER take the Ohio Bar?

[Captain Obvious]

To answer the question, why not?

He'll fit right in woth the rest of them.

[Cletus]

Objection!!!

Attachment 19187

You are a good egg, Mr. Utley.

You are honest, intelligent, and not afraid of a little laugh at your expense.

Good on you.

[Newpublius]

To take the Ohio Bar, you have to pass a character and fitness evaluation. This is a very serious issue -- a lot of us have done things in college or h.s. that we aren't terribly proud of. Generally, you can get over that provided you are candid. I remember my fitness evaluation well, and the angst that it caused me. You appear before three lawyers that grill you on your application and the results of the background check.

Well....this particular candidate was less than candid. Incredibly less than candid. The Court's decision has caused somewhat of a stir in Ohio with some feeling that he should never ever be permitted to take the bar but some feeling a 'period of maturity' would suffice.

Here, Coll impeded the bar-admissions investigation into his past conduct—a process that relies on the honesty and candor of the applicant to identify past incidents of unlawful conduct to narrow the focus of the board’s investigation. As the panel noted in its report, rather than providing the specific information needed to judge his character and fitness to be an attorney, he described the incidents on his Form 5T as “[r]acism mostly.” He testified that he felt he had been racially profiled, and as the panel further noted, when asked to supplement his application, he described his offenses as “KKK … their city is worthless,” “The police are the KKK,” “KKK … maybe I was speeding,” “KKK … They wanted to be me,” and “KKK … They hate being them.” In explaining these answers, he said, “I thought it was a great opportunity to tell the State of Ohio how I want to freely express myself” and that “I was just making it a point that I can say whatever I want to the State of Ohio.” He told the panel, “I wanted this case. * * * I thought it would be interesting. I thought it would be worth it. I said, * * * you can do it and you’ll still get final approval to sit for the bar.”

Thoughts?

Article on decision: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/leg...-business.html

Decision: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...AjkNjRq8UhIrAQ

No, he should not be currently admitted. However, I am not seeing anything in there where he is actually lying or violating his duty ot candor. Rather, I see a flippant applicant who shows a current inability to take the application process seriously and, in so doing, shows that he is bot currently fit to practice law. However, I don't see thos as a permanent disability and after some period of reflection where the applicant can show evidence of his 'rehabilitation' then I would have no problem seeing this candidate cleared to take the bar exam.

[Newpublius]

I understand that criminal arrests and convictions are material to the test of character and fitness, but traffic violations? That said, he does have an attitude of disdain toward the police in Ohio that could prove to be problematic.

He could try to take the bar in another state.

Also, one thing I would like to point out is that, in essence, one branch of the government, in this case the character/fitness committee is asking the applicant to disclose prior criminal conduct or perhaps traffic infractions. Why? Aren't they going to pull the applicant's criminal record/driver's abstract ANYWAY?

I would also point out that the applicant, even by being flippant, in essence is giving notice to those reading the application that he or she had received some citations. So, the committee can look closer at the circumstances surrounding those citations. At the end of the day, I just don't see an affirmative lie or devious omission here where I would question this person's overall ability to be candid or not violate the duty of candor. I see a lack of maturity....redemption is a few years away, I would hope.

[The Xl]

Our society is plaged by lawyers. Roaches provide more use to us than lawyers do.

There needs to be a virus like aids or ebola that only affects lawyers and kills 90% of them.

While this is a little extreme, it's more or less accurate. Lawyers take far more than they give, they profit immensely off of a completely broken civil and criminal system, a system that seems more interested in fraudulently filling their pockets than it is in justice, at the expense of the civilian population.

[Ethereal]

Since when has being of "good character" been a requirement for a lawyer? Ohio must have different standards from the rest of the country.

[DGUtley]

While this is a little extreme, it's more or less accurate. Lawyers take far more than they give, they profit immensely off of a completely broken civil and criminal system, a system that seems more interested in fraudulently filling their pockets than it is in justice, at the expense of the civilian population.

I respectfully disagree that lawyers take far more than they give.
I respectfully disagree that the civil and criminal justice systems are "completely broken".

[Peter1469]

In Texas there was a paper application along with criminal background checks. In DC the same procedure was used.

To answer the question in the OP- no. This person should have not been deemed qualified.

To take the Ohio Bar, you have to pass a character and fitness evaluation. This is a very serious issue -- a lot of us have done things in college or h.s. that we aren't terribly proud of. Generally, you can get over that provided you are candid. I remember my fitness evaluation well, and the angst that it caused me. You appear before three lawyers that grill you on your application and the results of the background check.

Well....this particular candidate was less than candid. Incredibly less than candid. The Court's decision has caused somewhat of a stir in Ohio with some feeling that he should never ever be permitted to take the bar but some feeling a 'period of maturity' would suffice.

Here, Coll impeded the bar-admissions investigation into his past conduct—a process that relies on the honesty and candor of the applicant to identify past incidents of unlawful conduct to narrow the focus of the board’s investigation. As the panel noted in its report, rather than providing the specific information needed to judge his character and fitness to be an attorney, he described the incidents on his Form 5T as “[r]acism mostly.” He testified that he felt he had been racially profiled, and as the panel further noted, when asked to supplement his application, he described his offenses as “KKK … their city is worthless,” “The police are the KKK,” “KKK … maybe I was speeding,” “KKK … They wanted to be me,” and “KKK … They hate being them.” In explaining these answers, he said, “I thought it was a great opportunity to tell the State of Ohio how I want to freely express myself” and that “I was just making it a point that I can say whatever I want to the State of Ohio.” He told the panel, “I wanted this case. * * * I thought it would be interesting. I thought it would be worth it. I said, * * * you can do it and you’ll still get final approval to sit for the bar.”

Thoughts?

Article on decision: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/leg...-business.html

Decision: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...AjkNjRq8UhIrAQ

[Peter1469]

Most lawyers don't fit that mold.

While this is a little extreme, it's more or less accurate. Lawyers take far more than they give, they profit immensely off of a completely broken civil and criminal system, a system that seems more interested in fraudulently filling their pockets than it is in justice, at the expense of the civilian population.

[The Xl]

I respectfully disagree that lawyers take far more than they give.
I respectfully disagree that the civil and criminal justice systems are "completely broken".

Being a lawyer, I'm sure you would.

The justice system doesn't even work for the lower classes, you guys getting paid insane amounts of money is more important than that.