Case Title: In re Application of Mitchell

Citation: 1997-Ohio-297

Docket Number: 19970408

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1997-06-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Application of Mitchell. 
[Cite as In re Application of Mitchell (1997), ______Ohio St.3d_____.] 
Attorneys at law -- Application to take Ohio Bar Examination denied, 
when -- Gov.Bar R. I(12)(C)(6), applied. 
 
(No. 97-408 -- Submitted March 31, 1997 -- Decided June 25, 1997.) 
 
ON REPORT of the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness 
of the Supreme Court, No. 141. 
 
On February 2, 1995, Scott A. Mitchell of Dayton, Ohio, applied for 
admission to the practice of law in Ohio.  Two members of the Dayton Bar 
Association’s Committee on Bar Examination and Qualifications 
(“committee”) interviewed Mitchell and decided that he did not possess the 
requisite character and fitness to practice law in Ohio.  The full committee 
interviewed Mitchell on December 13, 1995, and recommended disapproval 
of his admission to the practice of law.  Mitchell appealed the committee’s 
decision to the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness of the 
Supreme Court (“board”), and a panel of the board heard the matter on 
October 21, 1996. 
 
2
 
The panel found as follows:  In 1989, Mitchell was convicted for the 
misuse of credit cards while a student at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio.  
In 1991, Mitchell was convicted of complicity to attempted forgery and was 
sentenced to six months’ confinement, all but ten days of which was 
suspended. For that same incident, he was placed on probation by the 
university.  In 1991, Mitchell was convicted of the attempted transport of an 
unloaded firearm, and in 1991, he was also charged with ticket scalping in 
California.  There is an outstanding warrant for his arrest on this latter 
charge because he did not appear in the California courts.  While in law 
school, Mitchell continued “on occasions” to operate a motor vehicle even 
though his operator’s license had been suspended.  Mitchell also had several 
traffic citations in the Hamilton County courts for which he did not appear 
and which are still pending.  
 
Further, he has had several credit cards canceled for nonpayment, he 
could not support his allegation that he was voluntarily paying child support 
for his daughter, and he lied on his application to Texas Southern University 
Thurgood Marshall School of Law in 1992 by answering “no” to questions 
 
3
whether he had ever been placed on probation by an institution of learning 
and whether he had ever been convicted of a crime. 
 
By way of explanation, Mitchell pointed out that he made full 
restitution for the misuse of the credit cards and that because he could not 
afford a lawyer he pled “no contest” to the forgery charge which he believed 
was unwarranted.  Mitchell said that he was unaware that he had made 
misstatements on his law school application form about the convictions and 
suspension during his time as a student at Miami.  He believed that the 
convictions had been expunged and that the probation had been removed 
from his university record.  He denied scalping tickets in California, stating 
that the attempted sale was for less than their face value.  Now he does have 
a driver’s license, and he has a credit service handling his debt defaults. 
Mitchell said that he assumed the charges based on traffic tickets were 
dismissed when his driver’s license was suspended because they do not 
appear on the court’s computer. 
 
Based on its findings and considering Mitchell’s explanations, the 
panel concluded that Mitchell failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing 
evidence that he presently possesses the requisite character, fitness and 
 
4
moral qualifications to be allowed to practice law in Ohio.  The panel 
recommended that he be permitted to reapply to take the July 1998 bar 
examination.  As a part of any new application, he then must attach written 
evidence that he has satisfactorily addressed the panel’s concerns about 
unresolved traffic violations and unresolved matters relating to the charge 
against him in California.  He must then also demonstrate that he has taken 
actions to deal with his outstanding indebtedness and to provide continuing 
support for his child. 
 
The board adopted the findings and conclusions of the panel, except 
that it recommended that Mitchell be permitted to reapply to take the 
February 1999 bar examination. 
____________________________________ 
 
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 run in “***to establish by clear and convincing evidence the 
applicant’s present character, fitness and moral qualifications for admission 
 
5
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. 
 
MOYER, C.J., COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur in part and 
dissent in part. 
 
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., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concur in the foregoing opinion.