Case Title: In re Application of Stewart

Citation: 2006-Ohio-6579

Docket Number: 20061621

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-12-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Application of Stewart, 112 Ohio St.3d 415, 2006-Ohio-6579.] 
 
 
IN RE APPLICATION OF STEWART. 
[Cite as In re Application of Stewart, 112 Ohio St.3d 415, 2006-Ohio-6579.] 
Attorneys — Character and fitness — Neglect of financial responsibilities weighs 
against approval of application for admission to the bar — Applicant may 
reapply to take a later bar examination upon demonstration of his 
character and fitness. 
(No. 2006-1621 — Submitted November 15, 2006 — Decided 
December 20, 2006.) 
ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and  
Fitness of the Supreme Court, No. 293. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Applicant, William Howard Stewart III of Dayton, Ohio, graduated 
from Salmon P. Chase College of Law in May 2004.  He applied to register as a 
candidate for admission to the Ohio bar on December 10, 2003.  See Gov.Bar R. 
I(1).  On March 25, 2004, he applied to take the July 2004 bar examination, 
updating his candidacy application as required by Gov.Bar R. I(3). 
{¶ 2} In early July 2004, two members of the Dayton Bar Association’s 
Admissions Committee, after interviewing the applicant, expressed concern over 
the applicant’s indebtedness, history of litigiousness, and overly combative 
nature.  The interviewers deferred a decision to the full 20 members of the 
admissions committee, in effect referring the cause for further review.  After 
much debate, the full committee approved the applicant’s character and fitness. 
{¶ 3} Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. I(10)(B)(2)(e), which allows sua sponte 
investigation of an applicant’s character and fitness at any time prior to his  
admission to the bar, the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
appointed a panel to review the applicant’s qualifications.  The panel heard the 
cause on January 14, 2005, and unanimously recommended against the 
applicant’s immediate approval, recommending instead that he be permitted to 
reapply to take the bar examination when he was better able to demonstrate his 
character and fitness to practice law.  The board adopted the panel’s report and 
recommendation and also made additional factual findings of its own. 
The Applicant’s Considerable Indebtedness 
{¶ 4} The applicant, who was 47 years old at the time of the panel 
hearing, has a history of financial irresponsibility.  The board was deeply troubled 
by this and his lack of candor about the extent of his indebtedness.  The applicant 
confirmed during the hearing that he had outstanding debts ranging from 
$160,000 to $170,000, with all but $30,000 of the indebtedness being attributable 
to student loans.  The applicant testified that he had applied for another six-month 
deferment for repaying the student loans but had not yet received notice of that 
determination. 
{¶ 5} The remaining $30,000 of debt, the applicant explained, was 
attributable to four credit cards.  The applicant reported that he had recently tried 
to arrange payment plans with two of these creditors and had done so successfully 
with one, but had not gotten around to making similar arrangements with the two 
other credit card companies.  When the panel inquired as to whether any of his 
credit card bills were 90 days past due when he filed his bar exam application in 
March 2004,  the applicant replied, “No,” just as he had in response to this 
question on his application.  What he meant by this statement and his answer, 
however, was that he had never allowed three months to pass without making 
some payment on each card, not that he had consistently kept up his payments 
even in the minimum amounts.  In a marked understatement, the applicant 
acknowledged that he was a “slow pay” on his revolving credit accounts. 
January Term, 2006 
3 
{¶ 6} The applicant, who is now a self-employed painter, explained that 
he simply does not have the money to pay his obligations.  He withdrew his 
contributions from the Public Employee Retirement System and used the money 
during law school and while studying for the bar exam, but that money ran out in 
August 2004.  He promised the panel, however, to do better in paying his credit 
card debts with the $600 per week he was earning as a painter. 
{¶ 7} The panel asked the applicant to produce the credit card statements 
that he had received after he had filed his bar-candidacy application in December 
2003.  The applicant agreed to present the 13 months’ worth of statements for all 
four cards promptly in order to accommodate review before the board meeting to 
be held on February 3, 2005.  The applicant later contacted the panel chairperson 
and confessed that some of his credit card payments were, in fact, more than 90 
days overdue.  At that time, the panel chairperson again asked the applicant to 
forward the requested records, and the chairperson reminded the applicant 
immediately before the board meeting to send these reports.  The applicant 
supplemented his application materials on February 13 and March 12, 2005, too 
late for the board’s consideration. 
{¶ 8} In addition to his credit card and other debt, the applicant was 
delinquent during the years 1970 to 1990 in paying his federal, state, and local 
taxes.  The applicant explained his tax liability as being in part the result of his 
ex-wife’s failure to withhold payroll taxes for her family’s accounting business.  
Tax consequences also resulted when the applicant failed to withhold payroll 
taxes for his own business as a contractor.  The applicant eventually negotiated a 
settlement of his federal and state tax liability.  He claimed that he had resolved 
all his tax problems except for a deficiency of $1,500 in state taxes and $350 in 
federal taxes for 2004. 
The Applicant’s History of Litigiousness 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 9} The applicant’s bar application materials further confirmed that 
since 1976, he has been involved in 62 court cases concerning all manner of 
disputes.  In at least three cases, the applicant claimed unfair labor practices.  In at 
least nine cases, authorities attempted to collect the applicant’s delinquent federal, 
state, or local taxes.  Still other actions included 13 traffic citations and several 
disorderly conduct convictions, as well as a 2003 conviction for menacing, which 
was later reversed. 
{¶ 10} Despite this startling amount of legal activity, the board found that 
the applicant had never pursued a vexatious claim.  Moreover, because at least 11 
of the 62 cases were juvenile court proceedings in which the applicant had 
participated only as a parent, the board did not question the applicant’s 
involvement in those proceedings.  The 50 or so other cases were of considerable 
concern to the board, however, as was the applicant’s cavalier attitude toward his 
litigious record. 
{¶ 11} As of the panel hearing date, all but three of the approximately 50 
court cases had been resolved.  Still pending was a mandamus action to contest 
the dismissal of the applicant’s claims against his former employer, the city of 
Dayton, after the city allegedly denied him a day of vacation.  A related dispute in 
which the applicant had sued Dayton for abuse of process was also pending.  In 
the third case, the applicant was defending himself against a mortgage foreclosure 
action. 
{¶ 12} Despite this record, particularly the misdemeanor charges, the 
applicant disputed that he had shown any pattern of disregarding the law, a factor 
that weighs against an applicant’s approval under Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3)(f).  The 
applicant insisted that “all kinds of people” had a record of minor misdemeanors 
similar to his and that he did not “see it as a serious problem.”  To enter the 
practice of law in Ohio, however, one must be able “to conduct oneself with 
respect for and in accordance with the law.”  Supreme Court of Ohio, Definitions 
January Term, 2006 
5 
of Essential Eligibility Requirements for the Practice of Law, Requirement No. 5, 
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us./Admissions/application/03req/default.asp 
(“Essential Eligibility Requirements”). 
The Applicant’s Combativeness 
{¶ 13} Also of concern was the applicant’s inability to conduct himself 
without regularly resorting to behavior that the board referred to as pugnacious.  
Members of the bar admissions committee described the applicant as an 
“arrogant, pompous * * * know it all.”  The applicant admitted his characteristic 
hot temper, but defended it as a mere verbal manifestation that never resulted in a 
physical altercation: 
{¶ 14} “I think I can handle myself, conduct myself according to a code, a 
code of honor, and a code of doing right to other people, and if they don’t do me 
right, I’m like John Wayne, you’re going to hear about it, and I’m going to get up 
in your face but, like I said, I don’t beat anybody up.” 
{¶ 15} Acknowledging that a pleasant personality is not a prerequisite to 
the practice of law in Ohio, the board nevertheless noted that an applicant must 
have the ability to conduct himself professionally and in a manner that engenders 
respect for the law and the profession.  See Essential Eligibility Requirements, 
Requirement No. 10.  Throughout his testimony, however, the applicant was 
confrontational without provocation and saw nothing unprofessional about his 
remarks.  He also rejected the suggestion that he might benefit from anger-
management therapy, tossing off the board’s concern as “paternalistic.”  The 
applicant confessed that he had almost seen a psychiatrist in 2004 but had 
canceled the appointment because he considered it an empty gesture.  The 
applicant was confident that he would be able to practice law in accordance with 
professional and ethical standards because he intended to secure a transactional 
legal job that did not require him to interact with clients. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
{¶ 16} In conclusion, the board agreed with the panel and bar admission 
committee that the applicant’s poor temperament and litigious history were not by 
themselves sufficient to disapprove of his character and fitness.  Based on the 
combination of these factors, the applicant’s indebtedness, and his failure to 
candidly discuss or document his financial irresponsibility, however, the board 
found that he had not proved his character and fitness to practice law by clear and 
convincing evidence.  Because the applicant had failed to sustain his burden of 
proof, the board recommended disapproval of his application to take the Ohio bar 
exam and, consistent with the panel’s report, that he be permitted to reapply to 
take the bar examination at a later time.  The applicant has not objected to this 
recommendation. 
{¶ 17} On review, we adopt the findings and recommendation of the 
board.  Under Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(1), the applicant has the burden to prove by 
clear and convincing evidence that he possesses the requisite character, fitness, 
and moral qualifications for admission to the practice of law in Ohio.  The 
applicant did not meet that burden. 
{¶ 18} An applicant’s tendency toward financial irresponsibility makes 
him a poor risk to entrust with the duties owed clients, the courts, adversaries, and 
others in the practice of law.  In re Application of Ford, 110 Ohio St.3d 503, 
2006-Ohio-4967, 854 N.E.2d 501.  The neglect of financial responsibilities 
weighs against the approval of an application for admission and to take the bar 
exam.  Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3)(k); In re Application of Dickens, 106 Ohio St.3d 
128, 2005-Ohio-4097, 832 N.E.2d 725, ¶ 16.  Thus, “[w]e expect applicants for 
admission to the Ohio bar and bar members to scrupulously honor all financial 
commitments.”  In re Application of Manayan, 102 Ohio St.3d 109, 2004-Ohio-
1804, 807 N.E.2d 313, ¶ 14; see, also, In re Application of Mitchell (1997), 79 
Ohio St.3d 153, 679 N.E.2d 1127 (disapproving the application of an applicant 
January Term, 2006 
7 
who, along with other problems, had had several credit cards canceled for 
nonpayment). 
{¶ 19} Financial irresponsibility alone is enough to disapprove a bar 
candidacy or bar exam application, as is an applicant’s failure to provide 
requested information.  See Gov.Bar R. I(12)(C)(6).  The reservations expressed 
by the board about the applicant's financial condition are justified.  The 
application to take the Ohio bar examination is therefore disapproved at this time.  
The applicant may reapply when he is able to demonstrate that he possesses the 
requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to the practice 
of law in Ohio. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jenks, Pyper & Oxley Co., L.P.A., and P. Christian Nordstrom; and Bruce 
Martino, for relator. 
 
William Howard Stewart III, pro se. 
______________________