Case Title: In re Application of Steinhelfer

Citation: 2015-Ohio-978

Docket Number: 2014-1532

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2015-03-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as In 
re Application of Steinhelfer, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-978.] 
 
 
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. 2015-OHIO-978 
IN RE APPLICATION OF STEINHELFER. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as In re Application of Steinhelfer,  
Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-978.] 
Attorneys—Character and fitness—Lack of candor during admissions process—
Pending application to take the bar exam disapproved—Applicant may 
apply to take the February 2016 or later bar exam. 
(No. 2014-1532—Submitted January 14, 2015—Decided March 19, 2015.) 
ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and 
Fitness of the Supreme Court, No. 548. 
___________________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Timothy Michael Steinhelfer of Bellefontaine, Ohio, has applied to 
register as a candidate for admission to the Ohio bar and to take the Ohio bar 
examination.  The Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness 
recommends that we disapprove his application but allow him to apply to take the 
February 2016 bar examination.  No objections have been filed to the board’s 
report, and upon our review of the record, we accept the board’s recommendation. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Summary of the proceedings 
{¶ 2} Steinhelfer began attending the Chicago-Kent College of Law in 
Chicago, Illinois, in 2007 and filed his application to register as a candidate for 
admission to the Ohio bar in August 2010.  In May 2011, the admissions 
committee of the Logan County Bar Association conducted a character-and-
fitness interview.  Because the committee was later informed that Steinhelfer did 
not intend to take the bar examination, it did not create a report of its character-
and-fitness investigation.  Nonetheless, the committee had concerns about issues 
disclosed in Steinhelfer’s application and interview, including a prior arrest, 
credit-card debt, and uncertainty regarding his law-school graduation.  Steinhelfer 
told the interviewers that he had not yet graduated because of a disagreement with 
a professor.  Steinhelfer failed to mention, however, that he left Chicago-Kent 
College of Law in May 2010—a full year before the interview—and that he had 
not graduated because he failed to complete requirements in three courses, not 
simply because of a dispute with one professor. 
{¶ 3} After leaving law school in May 2010, Steinhelfer returned to 
Ohio, his state of residence.  In June 2011, he was charged with operating a 
vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, leaving the scene of an 
accident, failure to control his vehicle, and other offenses after hitting another car.  
In an agreement with the prosecutor, he pled no contest to reckless operation, a 
fourth-degree misdemeanor.  He was also sued in two cases relating to credit-card 
debt that he had accrued during law school, and he was terminated from an 
employment position.  In May 2012, he was hospitalized and diagnosed with 
alcohol dependency and a severe mental disorder.  He later commenced treatment 
for both conditions, including taking medication, attending counseling, attending 
a 12-step program, and abstaining from alcohol.  By December 2012, he had 
completed his outstanding course work and graduated from Chicago-Kent. 
January Term, 2015 
3 
 
{¶ 4} As he was finishing his course work, Steinhelfer applied to take the 
February 2013 bar examination.  In January 2013, the admissions committee from 
the Logan County Bar Association conducted a second character-and-fitness 
interview.  Upon completing its investigation, the committee disapproved his 
application, concluding that an insufficient amount of treatment time had passed 
since his mental-disorder diagnosis.  In March 2013, Steinhelfer appealed the 
committee’s decision, and a three-member panel of the board held a hearing on 
his appeal.1 
{¶ 5} At the hearing, Steinhelfer testified that he had been sober for two 
years and regularly attended Alcoholics Anonymous (“AA”) meetings, that his 
mental disorder had stabilized due to his doctor’s care and a medication regimen, 
and that in 2013 he had entered into a five-year contract with the Ohio Lawyers 
Assistance Program (“OLAP”).  A psychologist testified that Steinhelfer’s mental 
disorder was under control and that as long as he follows specific treatment 
recommendations, he should be able to function as an attorney.  In addition, 
Steinhelfer’s employer testified that he had excellent reasoning and analytical 
skills. 
{¶ 6} The panel, however, also heard testimony calling into question 
Steinhelfer’s candor throughout the application process.  For example, a 
committee member testified—and Steinhelfer also acknowledged—that he had 
not been forthcoming at his first character-and-fitness interview about why he had 
not graduated from law school.  Steinhelfer also belatedly disclosed that he had 
been terminated from a judge’s election campaign for unprofessional conduct 
while canvassing door-to-door.  And he acknowledged that he had failed to 
comply with some of the requirements of his OLAP contract.  For instance, within 
                                                          
 
1 While his appeal was pending, Steinhelfer also filed applications to take the July 2013, February 
2014, and July 2014 bar examinations, although he was notified that he was not permitted to sit for 
the examination until the office of bar admissions received final approval of his character and 
fitness.   
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
months of signing the contract, he stopped providing OLAP with the required 
documentation verifying his attendance at AA meetings.  He evidently attended 
the meetings, but was embarrassed to obtain verification in front of the other 
participants.  Also, his contract requires him to call OLAP three times a week, but 
five months after signing the agreement, he started making the calls only 
sporadically.  He claimed at the hearing that he had forgotten about that contract 
term. 
{¶ 7} Finally, Steinhelfer informed the panel that he had been receiving 
Social Security disability benefits because of his mental disorder.  Upon the 
request of the panel, he agreed to submit a copy of his application and supporting 
materials for those benefits, but he later tendered only the Social Security 
Administration’s summary of his application.  The panel expressed concern about 
the document he provided because it did not include a certification from a treating 
physician, which was information that the panel expected to be in his application.  
Further, the document revealed that Steinhelfer had previously used a different 
name, a fact that the panel was unaware of. 
The board’s recommendation 
{¶ 8} Similar to the committee, the board questions whether sufficient 
treatment time has elapsed since stabilization of Steinhelfer’s mental disorder.  
The board concludes, however, that it is unnecessary to answer that question 
because the “more serious concern is his lack of candor and his failure to make 
full disclosure on several issues” throughout the application process.  Specifically, 
the board found that Steinhelfer (1) failed to explain his law-school status at his 
first character-and-fitness interview, (2) failed to previously disclose his 
termination from a judicial campaign for inappropriate behavior, (3) failed to 
previously disclose that he had been receiving disability benefits, and (4) failed to 
submit all of the documents that had been requested by the panel.  The board also 
finds that his “willful non-compliance” with his OLAP contract demonstrates a 
January Term, 2015 
5 
 
“current lack of character.”  Accordingly, the board recommends that we 
disapprove his current application but permit him to apply to take the February 
2016 bar examination, provided that he starts the entire bar-application process 
anew. 
Disposition 
{¶ 9} 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 justify “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. 
{¶ 10} In determining whether the record demonstrates such a deficiency, 
we consider a number of factors, including an applicant’s “[f]ailure to provide 
complete and accurate information concerning the applicant’s past” and “[f]alse 
statements, including omissions,” during the application process.  Gov.Bar R. 
I(11)(D)(3)(g) and (h).  Here, the evidence demonstrates that since filing his 
application to register as a candidate in 2010, Steinhelfer has made some positive 
changes in his life.  However, he was not forthcoming regarding several issues, 
and he willfully failed to comply with the terms of his OLAP contract.  We 
therefore agree with the board that Steinhelfer has failed to prove that he currently 
possesses the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to 
the practice of law in Ohio. 
{¶ 11} Accordingly, Steinhelfer’s pending application to take the bar 
exam is disapproved.  He may apply to take the February 2016 or a later bar 
examination, provided that he submits a new application to register as a candidate 
for admission to the practice of law and a new application to take the bar 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
examination.  Upon reapplication, he must undergo a complete character-and-
fitness investigation to determine whether he possesses the requisite qualifications 
for admission to the practice of law in Ohio. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and 
O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
O’DONNELL, J., dissents, and would allow respondent to apply for the July 
2016 bar examination. 
_______________________________ 
Bruce Comly French, for applicant. 
Smith, Smith, Montgomery & Chamberlain, and J. MacAlpine Smith, for 
Logan County Bar Association. 
_________________________