Case ID: ohio-st-3d_79/html/0153-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n     Cook, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re Application of Mitchell
    [Cite as In re Application of Mitchell (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 153.]
    (No. 97-408
    Submitted March 31, 1997
    Decided June 25, 1997.)
    
      
      Harry Beyoglides, Jr., for the Dayton Bar Association.
    
      Scott A. Mitchell, pro se.
    
   Per Curiam.

Admission to the practice of law in Ohio requires the applicant “ * * * to establish by clear and convincing evidence the applicant’s present character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to the practice of law in Ohio.” Gov.Bar R. I(12)(C)(6). See In re Application of Bower (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 429, 431, 605 N.E.2d 6, 7.

After reviewing the evidence, we agree with the findings and conclusions of the board. At this time, Mitchell has too many unresolved matters relating to his character and fitness to warrant being authorized to take the July 1998 bar examination. The additional delay recommended by the board will provide Mitchell with an opportunity to resolve these pending matters.

We therefore adopt the recommendation of the board.

Judgment accordingly.

Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Cook, J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part. I would not permit Mr. Mitchell to reapply for admission to the practice of law in Ohio.

Moyer, C.J., Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part.

Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, J., concur in the foregoing opinion.