Case Title: In re Application of Coll

Citation: 2017-Ohio-4023

Docket Number: 2016-1243

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2017-05-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as In 
re Application of Coll, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-4023.] 
 
 
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. 2017-OHIO-4023 
IN RE APPLICATION OF COLL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as In re Application of Coll, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-4023.] 
Attorneys—Character 
and 
fitness—Lack 
of 
candor 
during 
admissions 
process─Determination of necessity and relevance of information 
requested during admissions process is committed to sound discretion of 
this court, not to the applicant—Pending application to take bar exam 
disapproved—Reapplication permitted, for February 2018 bar exam.  
(No. 2016-1243—Submitted January 11, 2017—Decided May 31, 2017.) 
ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and 
Fitness of the Supreme Court, No. 643. 
___________________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Applicant, Shamir Lee Coll, of Toledo, Ohio, is a 2015 graduate of 
the University of Toledo College of Law.  He has applied to register as a candidate 
for admission to the practice of law in Ohio and to take the February 2016 bar exam.  
Two members of the Toledo Bar Association admissions committee interviewed 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Coll on November 13, 2015, and the committee issued a provisional and final report 
recommending that he be approved as to his character and fitness to practice law. 
{¶ 2} On February 19, 2016, the Board of Commissioners on Character and 
Fitness announced that it would exercise the sua sponte authority conferred upon it 
by Gov.Bar R. I(10)(B)(2)(e) to further investigate Coll’s character and fitness to 
practice law. 
{¶ 3} A panel of the board conducted a hearing on April 28, 2016, at which 
the inquiry focused on Coll’s failure to detail on a form (“Form 5T”) in the 
application each moving traffic violation he had received in the ten years 
immediately preceding his application.  Based on its findings that Coll did not 
provide complete information on his past moving violations and that he made 
“provocative statements” of his personal beliefs on a supplement to his application 
that a bar-admissions specialist asked him to submit, the panel recommended that 
his application be disapproved but that he be permitted to reapply for the July 2019 
Ohio bar exam.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and 
recommendations. 
{¶ 4} Coll objects to the board’s consideration of statements of his personal 
beliefs that he made in his supplements to his application (Objection 1); the board’s 
finding that he has failed to carry his burden of proving his character, fitness, and 
moral qualifications to practice law (Objections 2 through 4); the timing of the 
board’s consideration of his application (Objection 5); and the board’s 
recommendation that he be permitted to reapply for the July 2019 bar exam 
(Objection 6).  The Toledo Bar Association has not filed a brief or otherwise 
responded to Coll’s objections. 
{¶ 5} Based solely on Coll’s failure to provide complete and timely 
responses and updates to questions on his application to register as a candidate for 
admission to the bar, we find that he has failed to carry his burden of proving that 
he currently possesses the requisite character and fitness to practice law in the state 
January Term, 2017 
 
3
of Ohio.  Therefore, we disapprove Coll’s pending registration application, but for 
the reasons that follow, we will permit him to reapply as a candidate for the July 
2018 bar exam. 
Summary of the Proceedings 
{¶ 6} As the board noted, the incidents disclosed in Coll’s application were 
“relatively benign” and do not raise significant concerns regarding his character or 
fitness to practice law.  For example, as an undergraduate at Bowling Green State 
University, Coll was cited for disorderly conduct after he argued with campus 
police officers, who had refused to help him pull his car out of the mud.  He pleaded 
no contest and was ordered to perform five hours of community service. 
{¶ 7} Instead, the primary concern of the board and this court is Coll’s 
failure to provide a complete response to the question of the application that asks 
whether the applicant has “been charged with any moving traffic violations that 
were not alcohol- or drug-related during the past ten years” and if so, directs the 
applicant to complete Form 5T.  Coll answered the question in the affirmative, and 
on an initial Form 5T, he provided his full name, Social Security number, and 
current Ohio driver’s-license number.  But the form instructed him to provide 
additional specific information for each violation, including the name of the law-
enforcement agency, the incident location (city, county, state or province, and 
country), the date of the incident, the charge(s) on the date of the incident, the date 
of final disposition (month and year), the charge(s) at the time of final disposition, 
the final disposition, and a description of the incident.  Instead, Coll reported that 
he had had moving violations in “Many Cities, Many Counties, OH,” and he listed 
only one incident date and one disposition date for a 2012 speeding charge. 
{¶ 8} On February 4, 2016, an Ohio bar-admissions specialist e-mailed Coll 
and informed him that the board had begun meeting to issue final approval for 
applicants seeking to sit for the February 2016 bar exam.  He also informed Coll 
that the board had requested that he fill out information for each of his prior moving 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
violations on separate Form 5Ts, noting that the information he had previously 
provided was “not specific enough” and that “[p]roviding this information could 
affect [his] ability to sit for the bar exam.”  Coll e-mailed a response to the bar-
admissions specialist, attaching a single Form 5T that provided only his name, 
Social Security number, and driver’s-license number, along with an abstract driver 
record from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles reflecting that he had had no 
moving violations in the previous three years. 
{¶ 9} The next day, the bar-admissions specialist e-mailed Coll again to 
inform him that the information he had submitted was insufficient because it did 
not pertain to any specific traffic violations and because the abstract of his driving 
record covered only three of the ten years at issue.  The bar-admissions specialist 
requested that Coll provide completed Form 5Ts for each violation that occurred 
during the ten-year period.  In response to this second request for supplemental 
information, Coll sent an e-mail with two Form 5Ts that identified four traffic 
violations (two in 2008 and two in 2012) and provided some—but not all—of the 
requested information.  Specifically, he failed to state the charges levied against 
him in the four incidents he identified, the dates of their final dispositions, and the 
final dispositions of the matters—i.e., the verdicts and sanctions (if any) that were 
imposed.  It is also apparent from the exhibits and testimony Coll offered at the 
hearing that he had received additional citations that he never disclosed in his 
application or supplements—including two traffic citations that he received in May 
and July 2009. 
{¶ 10} Another question on the registration application asks, “Have you 
ever been cited, arrested, charged, or convicted for any violation of any law 
including as a juvenile (except traffic violations)?”  Under Gov.Bar R. I(2)(F), an 
applicant has a continuing duty to update the information contained in the 
application and promptly report all changes or additions to the Office of Bar 
Admissions.  But Coll failed to timely disclose two fourth-degree misdemeanor 
January Term, 2017 
 
5
charges of undersize fishing and fishing in a closed zone that were pending against 
him at the time of his April 28, 2016 admissions hearing.  He did, however, 
supplement his application after he was convicted of those offenses on June 3, 2016, 
and sentenced to ten days in jail (suspended) and two years of probation for each 
offense to be served consecutively.  The board viewed Coll’s delayed disclosure of 
these convictions as part of a pattern of nondisclosure that did not speak well of his 
character and fitness. 
{¶ 11} In his testimony, Coll maintained that his registration application 
was complete because he provided his full name, Social Security number, and 
driver’s-license number on the initial Form 5T.  He argued that pursuant to Gov.Bar 
R. I, he had no obligation to provide any additional information and that once he 
had provided his identifying information, it was the duty of this court or its agents 
to investigate his past conduct.  He asserted that the board breached its contract 
with him because he had paid the application fee in exchange for an investigation 
that, in his view, did not occur.  Alternatively, he asserted that his driving record is 
of no consequence in measuring his overall character—particularly in light of the 
fact that the abstract of his recent driving history reflects his “rehabilitation” from 
his past violations. 
{¶ 12} The board found that Coll’s conduct and his stated reasons for failing 
to provide the information requested in the traffic-violation question are clear 
violations of an applicant’s duty to cooperate and provide accurate and complete 
answers to all requested information.  See Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3)(g) (providing 
that an applicant’s failure to provide complete and accurate information concerning 
the applicant’s past is one factor to be considered in determining whether the 
applicant possesses the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications to 
practice law); Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(1) and I(12)(C)(6) (providing that an applicant’s 
failure to provide requested information or otherwise to cooperate in proceedings 
before the admissions committee and the board may be grounds for a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
recommendation of disapproval).  The board also found that Coll willfully and 
deliberately chose not to answer the questions at issue and unilaterally decided 
which questions were pertinent to the admissions process—indeed, he testified that 
he could have submitted a Form 5T containing all the requested information but 
chose not to do so. 
{¶ 13} The board determined that Coll’s failure to understand his 
obligations as an applicant and the role of this court in the background investigation 
demonstrated an inability to understand the simplest terms of Gov.Bar R. I and the 
instructions for completing the application.  In addition, the board suggested that 
his interpretation of the rule reflects “a degree of arrogance and disdainfulness for 
the Court that brings into serious question the applicant’s maturity and judgment” 
as well as his readiness to represent clients in a professional manner. 
{¶ 14} Coll objects to the board’s findings, arguing that the disclosures in 
his application were sufficient and timely and that he has proven by clear and 
convincing evidence that he possesses the requisite character and fitness to practice 
law.  He asserts that the board abused its discretion by failing to consider the factors 
set forth in Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3) and (4) in evaluating his application and 
assigning weight and significance to his prior conduct.  Coll also contends that the 
board’s recommendation that he be permitted to reapply for the July 2019 bar exam 
is overly harsh in light of our decisions in cases involving applicants who omitted 
more serious conduct from their registration applications. 
Disposition 
{¶ 15} 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).  “An 
applicant’s failure to provide requested information, including information 
regarding expungements and juvenile court proceedings, or otherwise to cooperate 
in proceedings before the admissions committee may be grounds for a 
January Term, 2017 
 
7
recommendation of disapproval.”  Id.; accord Gov.Bar R. I(12)(C)(6) (“An 
applicant’s failure to provide requested information * * * or otherwise to cooperate 
in proceedings before the Board may be grounds for a recommendation of 
disapproval”). 
{¶ 16} Here, the evidence shows that Coll read the instructions on the 
registration application and Form 5T, which plainly directed him to disclose 
detailed information about each moving traffic violation he had received in the past 
ten years.  But Coll chose not to disclose the requested information on his 
application or in his supplemental disclosures and inexplicably claimed—despite 
the plain instructions and the specificity of the application questions—that the only 
information he was required to provide was his name, his Social Security number, 
and his driver’s-license number.  Coll has failed to provide complete and accurate 
information that is responsive to the questions about his past conduct and thereby 
made false statements by omission.  See Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3)(g) and (h). 
{¶ 17} Even more troubling than Coll’s insistence that he had no duty to 
make the disclosures as directed in the registration application were his repeated, 
emphatic, and utterly false declarations that it was the board—and consequently 
this court—that had failed to faithfully discharge its duty to investigate his 
background. 
{¶ 18} Coll adamantly refused to yield to the interpretation of Gov.Bar R. I 
established by this court and advanced by the panel, dismissing it as a mere 
“counterargument.”  But contrary to Coll’s claims, the panel’s interpretation of the 
rules and instructions is well rooted in the plain language of the rules and our 
jurisprudence.  See, e.g., Gov.Bar.R. I(11)(D)(1) and I(12)(C)(6); In 
re Application of Watson, 31 Ohio St.3d 220, 509 N.E.2d 1240 (1987), syllabus 
(“All information requested by any authorized committee, board or this court, 
reviewing the character and fitness of an applicant seeking to be admitted to the 
practice of law in Ohio, shall be fully, honestly and completely provided by the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
applicant”).  Indeed, the determination of the necessity and relevance of the 
information requested during the admissions process is committed to the sound 
discretion of this court—not to the applicant, as Coll would have us believe.  See 
Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 2(B)(1)(g) (conferring original jurisdiction 
to this court over “[a]dmission to the practice of law, the discipline of persons so 
admitted, and all other matters relating to the practice of law”). 
{¶ 19} Moreover, an applicant’s payment of the nonrefundable fees for 
registration as a candidate, for the bar-exam application, and for the National 
Conference of Bar Examiners (“NCBE”) character investigation do not discharge 
his or her obligation to make an honest and complete disclosure of all information 
requested in the admissions process, as Coll asserts.  See Gov.Bar R. I(2)(B)(4) and 
(5), I(3)(B)(6), and I(14)(A).  On the contrary, the process relies on the applicant’s 
honesty and candor in identifying past incidents of unlawful conduct to narrow the 
focus of our inquiry from every jurisdiction in the country (or beyond) to those 
jurisdictions that may actually possess relevant information about the applicant.  
And Coll’s omissions impeded the bar-admissions investigation into his past 
conduct in this case. 
{¶ 20} Coll’s failures to disclose the requested information also raise 
significant questions about his cognitive capacity to learn, to recall what has been 
learned, to reason and to analyze, and to exercise good judgment and act in 
accordance with the law and the rules governing the practice of law—not only in 
his own professional affairs but also in the affairs that clients will one day entrust 
to him.  Supreme Court of Ohio, Definitions of Essential Eligibility Requirements 
for 
the 
Practice 
of 
Law, 
Requirement 
Nos. 
1 
and 
3, 
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/AttySvcs/admissions/pdf/ESSENTIAL_ELIG
IBILITY_REQUIREMENTS.pdf (accessed Jan. 30, 2017).  His overt and profound 
disrespect for this court—even as he seeks the privilege of admission to the bar—
also calls into question his ability to conduct himself with respect for and in 
January Term, 2017 
 
9
accordance with the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct; his ability to conduct 
himself diligently and reliably in fulfilling all obligations to clients, attorneys, 
courts, and others; and his ability to conduct himself professionally and in a manner 
that engenders respect for the law and the profession.  Id., Requirement Nos. 5, 7, 
and 10.  See also Shimko v. Lobe, 103 Ohio St.3d 59, 2004-Ohio-4202, 813 N.E.2d 
669, ¶ 54 (recognizing that the practice of law is not a right but an extraordinary 
privilege bestowed by this court on those persons who meet the qualifications for 
admission and continue to maintain the standard of ethical conduct prescribed by 
the rules of the court). 
{¶ 21} Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(4)(a) through (j) sets forth ten factors to be 
considered in determining the weight and significance to assign to an applicant’s 
past conduct.  Although Coll’s traffic violations occurred more than three years 
before he submitted his registration application on August 27, 2015, his false 
statements by omission began on that date—when he was 24 years old and a third-
year law student.  Because these were not youthful indiscretions but the conscious 
decisions of a person just months away from completing law school, Coll’s age at 
the time of his conduct and the recency of the conduct are significant.  See Gov.Bar 
R. I(11)(D)(4)(a) and (b).  The information regarding this misconduct is reliable, 
because he readily admits that he omitted requested information from his 
application.  See Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(4)(c). 
{¶ 22} There can be no doubt that Coll’s lack of candor in the admissions 
process is serious, see Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(4)(d) and (i), because Gov.Bar R. I 
cautions applicants that “[a]n applicant’s failure to provide requested information 
* * * may be grounds for a recommendation of disapproval,” Gov.Bar R. 
I(11)(D)(1).  The factors underlying his failures to disclose also weigh against 
approval of Coll’s character and fitness, because he has maintained throughout the 
admissions process that he was required to provide nothing more than his name, 
Social Security number, and driver’s-license number to this court.  Moreover, he 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
10 
has admitted that he could have provided the requested information but chose not 
to.  See Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(4)(e).  Similarly, Coll was aware that two 
misdemeanor fishing charges were pending against him at the time of his 
admissions hearing, but he chose not to disclose those relatively minor offenses at 
that time—despite his continuing duty to promptly update the information 
contained in his application, including the character questionnaire, see Gov.Bar R. 
I(2)(F).  In isolation, those offenses appear minor, but Coll’s failure to disclose 
them while being questioned under oath about his previous failures to disclose 
requested and relevant information about his past violations serves only to heighten 
our concerns about his character and fitness to practice law. 
{¶ 23} Just three of the factors enumerated in Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(4) could 
weigh in favor of approving Coll’s character and fitness: (1) the unlikelihood that 
the traffic violations omitted from his registration application, if properly disclosed, 
would have raised significant concerns about his character and fitness, (2) his 
present willingness to submit properly completed Form 5Ts, and (3) his recent 
service as a victim’s advocate for Genesis House at the Lorain Municipal Court.1  
See Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(4)(g), (h), and (j). 
{¶ 24} On these findings, we overrule Coll’s second, third, and fourth 
objections to the board’s report and adopt the board’s finding that he has failed to 
carry his burden of proving that he presently possesses the requisite character and 
fitness to practice law in Ohio.  We also overrule his first and fifth objections as 
moot and deny his pending application. 
Reapplication 
{¶ 25} The board recommends that Coll be permitted to apply to take the 
July 2019 bar exam and submit a new registration application.  The board further 
recommends that upon reapplication, Coll undergo a complete character and fitness 
                                                          
 
1 At oral argument, Coll represented that he has already submitted to this court properly completed 
Form 5Ts, but they are not part of the record before us. 
January Term, 2017 
 
11 
investigation, including an investigation by the NCBE to determine whether he 
possesses the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to 
the practice of law in Ohio. 
{¶ 26} Coll objects to this recommendation as overly harsh when compared 
to the delays required in other cases involving applicants who exhibited a lack of 
candor during the admissions process.  He cites three cases in which applicants 
omitted more significant information from their registration or bar-exam 
applications but were permitted to reapply in three years or fewer.  He therefore 
urges us to permit him to take the bar exam in 2017. 
{¶ 27} In In re Application of Steinhelfer, 142 Ohio St.3d 120, 2015-Ohio-
978, 28 N.E.3d 107, we denied an application to take the February 2013 bar exam 
based on the applicant’s failure to submit all the documents that had been requested 
by the panel and his failure to timely disclose that he had (1) withdrawn from law 
school before his character and fitness interview and did not graduate because he 
failed to complete requirements in three courses—though he later completed his 
remaining coursework and graduated, (2) been terminated from a judicial campaign 
for unprofessional behavior, (3) been receiving Social Security disability benefits 
for a mental disorder, and (4) previously used a different name.  Despite those 
omissions, we permitted Steinhelfer to reapply for the February 2016 bar exam, 
thus delaying his application by three years.  Id. at ¶ 11. 
{¶ 28} In In re Application of Baudendistel, 141 Ohio St.3d 101, 2014-
Ohio-5200, 21 N.E.3d 1063, we denied an application to take the July 2013 bar 
exam because the applicant failed to provide complete and accurate information 
about an incident in which he crashed his vehicle into a parked car just weeks before 
he was scheduled to take the bar exam.  Not only did Baudendistel offer differing 
explanations during the admissions process for his postaccident conduct, but he 
initially failed to disclose that he had been drinking alcohol several hours before 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
12 
the crash.  We permitted Baudendistel to reapply for the July 2015 bar exam, thus 
delaying his application by two years.  Id. at ¶ 22. 
{¶ 29} And in In re Application of Grimsley, 141 Ohio St.3d 94, 2014-Ohio-
5033, 21 N.E.3d 1057, the applicant disclosed four alcohol-related offenses on his 
application to register as a candidate for admission to the bar, but he had disclosed 
just one of those offenses on his initial law-school applications and none of them 
on his subsequent transfer application.  Grimsley took some steps to remedy his 
material omissions and eventually admitted that he had “deliberately chose[n] to 
err on the side of nondisclosure” in completing his law-school applications and that 
his conduct was dishonest.  Id. at ¶ 11.  Troubled by his equivocation about the 
wrongfulness of his actions, we denied his application to take the July 2013 bar 
exam and permitted him to reapply for the February 2015 exam, thus delaying his 
application by one and a half years.  Id. at ¶ 12. 
{¶ 30} Based on the evidence and testimony Coll presented during the panel 
hearing, it appears that the offenses he failed to disclose in his registration 
application were not as severe as the offenses that Steinhelfer, Baudendistel, and 
Grimsley failed to disclose and therefore, his objection to the board’s 
recommendation that he be permitted to reapply for the July 2019 bar exam is well 
taken.  Because we remain troubled by Coll’s insistence that he had no obligation 
to disclose requested details about his past violations and his insistence that it is the 
obligation of the board, this court, or the NCBE to independently discover each of 
those violations based on minimal identifying information, we conclude that Coll 
would benefit from a “ ‘period of maturation’ to develop the honesty, 
trustworthiness, and reliability necessary for successful admission to the bar.”  In 
re Application of Zatik, 126 Ohio St.3d 397, 2010-Ohio-3828, 934 N.E.2d 335,  
¶ 8.  Therefore, to the extent that he seeks approval to take the bar exam in 2017, 
we overrule his sixth objection.  We will, however, permit him to reapply for the 
July 2018 bar exam. 
January Term, 2017 
 
13 
Conclusion 
{¶ 31} Accordingly, we disapprove Coll’s pending application to take the 
bar exam.  He may apply to take the July 2018 bar exam, provided that he submits 
a new application to register as a candidate for admission to the practice of law.  
Upon reapplication, he shall undergo a complete character and fitness investigation, 
including an investigation and report by the NCBE to determine whether he 
possesses the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to 
the practice of law in Ohio. 
Judgment accordingly. 
KENNEDY, FRENCH, O’NEILL, FISCHER, and DEWINE, JJ., concur. 
O’DONNELL, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined 
by O’CONNOR, C.J. 
_________________ 
O’DONNELL, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. 
{¶ 32} Respectfully, I have a different view of this case.  I concur in the 
judgment to disapprove the current application filed by Shamir Lee Coll, but 
contrary to the majority, I would permanently preclude this applicant from 
submitting an additional application for admission to the practice of law in the state 
of Ohio. 
{¶ 33} This court has recognized that “the practice of law is an 
extraordinary privilege bestowed by this court upon one who meets the 
qualifications for admission and continues to maintain the standard of ethical 
conduct as prescribed by the rules of the court.”  Shimko v. Lobe, 103 Ohio St.3d 
59, 2004-Ohio-4202, 813 N.E.2d 669, ¶ 54.  For this reason, an applicant seeking 
admission to the practice of law in Ohio shoulders the heavy burden “to prove by 
clear and convincing evidence that the applicant possesses the requisite character, 
fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to the practice of law.”  In re 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
14 
Application of Blackwell, 116 Ohio St.3d 530, 2007-Ohio-6041, 880 N.E.2d 886,  
¶ 32. 
{¶ 34} This court requires “the applicant’s forthright, conscientious 
participation” in the character and fitness review process.  In re Application of 
Bonetti, 117 Ohio St.3d 113, 2008-Ohio-503, 881 N.E.2d 1249, ¶ 9, citing Gov.Bar 
R. I(12)(C)(6).  As we explained in In re Application of Corrigan, 47 Ohio St.3d 
32, 546 N.E.2d 1315 (1989), 
 
“We view such proceedings as being different from the adversary 
contest associated with, for example, disciplinary cases.  A hearing 
to determine character and fitness should be more of a mutual 
inquiry for the purpose of acquainting this court with the applicant’s 
innermost feelings and personal views on those aspects of morality, 
attention to duty, forthrightness and self-restraint which are usually 
associated with the accepted definition of ‘good moral character.’  
Such a view commands the utmost in cooperation between the 
applicant and the board, and leaves little room for the employment 
of doctrines which work to keep relevant information from the 
board.” 
 
(Emphasis added in Corrigan.)  Id. at 34, quoting In re Application of Davis, 38 
Ohio St.2d 273, 274-275, 313 N.E.2d 363 (1974). 
{¶ 35} Thus, “[t]he importance of an applicant’s cooperation in the hearing 
process cannot be overstated.”  In re Application of Harris, 101 Ohio St.3d 268, 
2004-Ohio-721, 804 N.E.2d 429, ¶ 13.  We therefore have “disapproved bar 
applications in which applicants failed to disclose requested information in a 
forthright and complete manner.”  In re Dabney, 107 Ohio St.3d 40, 2005-Ohio-
5834, 836 N.E.2d 573, ¶ 14, citing In re Application of Williams, 95 Ohio St.3d 
January Term, 2017 
 
15 
107, 766 N.E.2d 143 (2002), and In re Application of Ireland-Phillips, 71 Ohio 
St.3d 609, 646 N.E.2d 453 (1995).  “Even one incomplete answer can lead to the 
disapproval of an admission application if the applicant does not fully and honestly 
explain when the opportunity arises.”  In re Application of Bagne, 102 Ohio St.3d 
182, 2004-Ohio-2070, 808 N.E.2d 372, ¶ 23. 
{¶ 36} Accordingly, in Harris, we disapproved an applicant who failed to 
produce financial information and records requested by the Board of 
Commissioners on Character and Fitness during the character and fitness 
investigation but allowed him to reapply for admission after filing an entirely new 
application to register as a candidate for admission and undergoing a new character 
and fitness evaluation.  Harris at ¶ 15.  In Dabney, we revoked Dabney’s Ohio 
license to practice law after the State Bar of Nevada discovered that she had not 
disclosed on her Nevada bar application her five arrests for prostitution-related 
offenses in the state of New York.  Dabney at ¶ 3, 13.  She voluntarily revealed that 
information to this court in an amendment to her Ohio bar application, prompting 
this court to revoke her law license.  Id. at ¶ 4, 15.  After we revoked her license to 
practice law, we permitted her to reapply for admission.  Id. at ¶ 15.  This court 
disapproved the application in Williams because the applicant did not disclose “in 
a forthright and honest manner” that he had been asked to resign from the Huber 
Heights police force after he “engaged in some indiscreet activity” with a teenager.  
Williams at 107-108.  Williams was permitted to reapply after a two-year hiatus.  
Id. at 108.  The application in Ireland-Phillips was disapproved because the 
applicant failed to fully explain a judgment entered against her for cashing a check 
with a forged indorsement, but the court permitted her to reapply two years later.  
Ireland-Phillips at 610-611.  And in Bagne, we disapproved the application based 
on the applicant’s “reluctance to respond with total honesty” and his lack of candor 
in giving inconsistent accounts of conduct that resulted in an aggravated assault 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
16 
conviction entered 11 years before he applied to take the Ohio bar exam, and we 
permitted him to reapply after a three-year hiatus.  Bagne at ¶ 23-24. 
{¶ 37} Thus, the court has considered cases involving a failure to produce 
financial records, a concealment of prior prostitution-related offenses, the failure to 
disclose information in a forthright manner relating to resignation from 
employment, and the failure to fully explain a judgment resulting from a forged 
instrument.  But none equate with a deliberate or persistent refusal to disclose the 
description of prior offenses combined with an explanation that the duty to uncover 
those details somehow belonged to this court. 
{¶ 38} Coll had been charged with traffic violations during the ten years 
preceding his application, and therefore, when he applied for admission to the bar, 
his application required him to complete and submit along with his application 
Form 5T by providing specific information for each incident, including the name 
of the law-enforcement agency, a description of the incident, the charges originally 
filed, and the final disposition.  But rather than provide a separate Form 5T for each 
incident, he simply indicated that he had traffic violations in “Many Cities, Many 
Counties, OH.” 
{¶ 39} The Office of Bar Admissions twice informed Coll that he needed to 
complete a separate Form 5T for each violation, but he did not do so.  As he later 
explained to the hearing panel reviewing his application, although he understood 
that he had not provided all of the information required by the application, he 
“didn’t feel like [he] had to.”  He noted that the blanks he left on his application 
were “a pattern.  That’s not ignorance.  There’s a pattern to these answers.”  Coll 
also admitted that he “certainly could have provided all this information, [but he] 
just chose not to,” believing that he had the right not to answer any factual question 
on the application. 
{¶ 40} Coll thus purposefully and knowingly failed to disclose information 
on his application.  And, rather than cooperate in the review of his character and 
January Term, 2017 
 
17 
fitness, he persisted in his refusal to disclose the requested information, based on 
his mistaken belief that his driving record for the past ten years was not material to 
his fitness to be an attorney and that he had provided sufficient information for the 
board and this court to conduct its own investigation into his offenses.  Further, he 
maintained that posture during oral argument before this court.  Having failed to 
fully participate in the character and fitness review process by providing incomplete 
answers, he cannot sustain his burden to demonstrate that he is qualified for 
admission.  I therefore concur with the court’s decision to disapprove Coll’s 
application. 
{¶ 41} Respectfully, I dissent from the majority’s decision to permit him to 
apply to take the July 2018 bar exam.  The majority points to “the unlikelihood that 
the traffic violations omitted from his registration application, if properly disclosed, 
would have raised significant concerns about his character and fitness.”  (Emphasis 
sic.)  Majority opinion at ¶ 23.  And it states that “it appears that the offenses he 
failed to disclose in his registration application were not as severe as the offenses” 
not disclosed by other applicants who have been permitted to reapply to take the 
bar exam.  Id. at ¶ 30. 
{¶ 42} The problem with this analysis is that Coll has not yet provided 
complete information about all of his offenses, and therefore it is not possible to 
compare his conduct to any other case or to decide that his pattern of conduct does 
not disqualify him from admission to the practice of law.  For example, he described 
some of his violations only as “speeding,” without giving specific details of the 
incidents or the dispositions; and as one member of the hearing panel noted, “[I]t 
might make a difference to the Court if you were going 100 miles an hour in a 
school zone whereas it might not make any difference to the Court if you were 
going 25 in a 20 zone.”  The facts of each violation are material to our review of 
Coll’s application, and without full disclosure of the details of each violation, it is 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
18 
not possible to conclude, as the majority does, that his pattern of conduct does not 
raise significant concerns about his character and fitness. 
{¶ 43} 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.” 
{¶ 44} He therefore made clear that his failure to provide the information 
requested was an attempt at “political expression” in which he sought a reaction 
from the board; but although he testified that he would advise clients to fill out their 
own application the same way, he cites no specific authority for the proposition that 
the right to free expression permitted him to refuse to give answers required of all 
other applicants seeking the privilege to practice law.  Moreover, not only did he 
indicate that his statements about the police were “just speech” and that he “wasn’t 
referring to anybody in specific,” but also the board heard evidence that he had 
previously admitted that he “didn’t really believe” his own claim that the police 
were the KKK.  Thus, the lack of seriousness, candor, and judgment Coll displayed 
throughout these proceedings renders him unfit to practice law. 
January Term, 2017 
 
19 
{¶ 45} Inexplicably, after detailing the transgressions and deliberate failure 
to disclose information necessary to evaluate his application, the majority cites 
three cases in which this court delayed a reapplication for admission: In re 
Application of Steinhelfer, 142 Ohio St.3d 120, 2015-Ohio-978, 28 N.E.3d 107 
(three years), In re Application of Baudendistel, 141 Ohio St.3d 101, 2014-Ohio-
5200, 21 N.E.3d 1063 (two years), and In re Application of Grimsley, 141 Ohio 
St.3d 94, 2014-Ohio-5033, 21 N.E.3d 1057 (one and a half years).  By comparison, 
Coll’s refusal demonstrates an attitude that he has no obligation to answer the 
questions posed to all other applicants and his belief that it is our obligation to 
investigate and discover the answers instead of having him respond.  This is an 
egregious character failure on his part.  Yet the court here imposes an application 
delay of only two years, one year less than the recommendation of the board after 
its thorough review of this matter.  The attitude, lack of candor, and disrespect 
shown toward this court in Coll’s repeated refusal to submit a completed 
application does not warrant a lenient sanction. 
{¶ 46} Unlike the majority, I am not convinced that Coll will benefit from 
the brief “ ‘period of maturation’ ” that the court provides him.  Majority opinion 
at ¶ 30, quoting In re Application of Zatik, 126 Ohio St.3d 397, 2010-Ohio-3828, 
934 N.E.2d 335, ¶ 8.  In my view, his persistent refusal to provide the answers to 
questions required of all other applicants for admission to the practice of law and 
his explanation and belief that the requirement to answer does not apply to him (he 
stated that he “didn’t feel like [he] had to” answer) demonstrate a lack of candor 
and a disrespect for the judiciary and for the obligation of this court to thoroughly 
investigate bar applicants with a view toward their suitability to practice law. 
{¶ 47} The oath taken by all lawyers in Ohio requires an aspiring lawyer to 
“show respect toward judges, court staff, clients, fellow professionals, and all other 
persons.”  Gov.Bar R. I(8)(A).  Coll has demonstrated an attitude that shows he 
lacks the ability to take that oath and does not have the professional judgment 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
20 
demanded of all lawyers.  His lack of candor and his disrespect for the court in 
frustrating our obligation to thoroughly investigate those seeking admission to the 
bar in Ohio suggest that he will not ever have the character and fitness to take the 
oath to become a lawyer in Ohio. 
{¶ 48} Accordingly, I would permanently prohibit Shamir Lee Coll from 
applying for admission to the practice of law in Ohio. 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 
_________________ 
Shamir Lee Coll, pro se. 
Keithley B. Sparrow, Toledo Bar Association. 
_________________