Case Title: In re Application of Panepinto

Citation: 1999-Ohio-466

Docket Number: 19981772

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-01-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN RE APPLICATION OF PANEPINTO. 
[Cite as In re Application of Panepinto (1999), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Application to take Ohio Bar examination denied, when — 
Applicant permitted to reapply to take July 1999 bar examination, when. 
(No. 98-1772 — Submitted October 13, 1998 — Decided January 20, 1999.) 
ON REPORT of the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness of the 
Supreme Court, No. 166. 
 
On July 9, 1996, Mark Daniel Panepinto of Wheeling, West Virginia, 
applied to register as a candidate for admission to the practice of law in Ohio.  
After personally interviewing Panepinto, the Admissions Committee of the 
Belmont County Bar Association originally recommended approval of his 
admission to practice law. 
 
The admissions committee subsequently received a copy of a letter sent by 
Wheeling Municipal Court Judge George E. McLaughlin, which indicated that in 
1982 and 1985, Panepinto obtained additional driver’s licenses in an attempt to 
circumvent a license suspension order.  The admissions committee then requested 
and received further information from Judge McLaughlin and the West Virginia 
Department of Motor Vehicles. 
 
On June 25, 1997, based on the new evidence, the admissions committee 
recommended that Panepinto be approved with qualifications, which under 
Gov.Bar R. I(11)(F)(1) operated as a recommendation that Panepinto not be 
admitted to practice law in Ohio. 
 
Panepinto 
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, 1997.  According to the board, 
 
2
the panel concluded that Panepinto lacked the requisite character and fitness for 
admission to practice law in Ohio but disagreed as to the appropriate sanction. 
 
The board reviewed the evidence and the report and recommendation 
submitted by the panel chairperson, and made the following findings.  In 1981, 
Panepinto applied for and was issued a West Virginia driver’s license under the 
name of Mark D. Panepinto.  In March 1982, when Panepinto was sixteen years 
old, his license was suspended for six months.  In order to continue driving, 
Panepinto applied for and was issued a second West Virginia driver’s license, and 
then a third in 1985, after being convicted of additional traffic violations.  The 
applications and driver’s licenses listed different names, Social Security numbers, 
and mailing addresses for Panepinto. 
 
In his application for admission to practice law in Ohio, Panepinto did not 
completely disclose the foregoing facts concerning his driver’s licenses and 
suspensions.  In response to the request that he state in full each name by which he 
had been known, the dates the names were used, and the reasons for using the 
names, Panepinto simply answered “Mark D. Panipinto [sic]-1985-error on 
driver’s license.” 
 
Panepinto continued to misrepresent some of the facts concerning his 
multiple licenses and 1982 license suspension in a July 1997 letter to the Supreme 
Court Admissions Office. 
 
In his Ohio application, Panepinto additionally misstated that he had never 
been a party to any legal proceeding in a juvenile court and that he had never been 
suspended from or terminated from enrollment in any high school.  At the hearing, 
Panepinto admitted that he had been suspended from one high school for fighting 
and placed on probation for that incident by the juvenile court. Another high 
school requested that Panepinto withdraw for academic reasons. 
 
3
 
Panepinto claimed that his failure to give complete and truthful responses 
resulted from his being “very busy,” the application being “very lengthy,” and his 
past actions being “very remote.”  Panepinto also stated that Judge McLaughlin, 
who had provided the information concerning Panepinto’s multiple driver’s 
licenses, was jealous of him and was conducting a vendetta against him. 
 
At the hearing, Panepinto attempted to modify his application and explain 
all of the pertinent issues.  Panepinto not only submitted numerous affidavits of 
persons attesting to his exceptional character, but also evidence that he had 
become a successful used car dealer and real estate developer by the time he 
applied to be admitted to practice law. 
 
The board concluded that because of the incomplete nature of Panepinto’s 
application and his “piecemeal explanations” of serious omissions in his 
application, he did not establish that he had the requisite character and fitness for 
admission.  The board recommended that Panepinto be required to submit a new 
application to register as a candidate for admission to the practice of law and a 
new application to take the bar examination, and that he submit to a new character 
and fitness examination.  The board further recommended that the earliest he be 
permitted to take the bar examination be July 1999. 
__________________ 
 
Yoss & Hampton and Thomas A. Hampton, for relator. 
 
Mark D. Panepinto, pro se. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  In order to be admitted to the practice of law in Ohio, the 
applicant must establish by clear and convincing evidence his “present character, 
fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to the practice of law in Ohio.”  
Gov.Bar R. I(12)(C)(6).  Evidence of false statements, including material 
 
4
omissions, and lack of candor in the admissions process reflect poorly on an 
applicant’s present character, fitness, and moral qualifications.  See Gov.Bar R. 
I(11)(D)(3)(h), (i) and I(11)(D)(4)(i), (j). 
 
After reviewing the evidence, we adopt the findings and recommendation of 
the board. Panepinto’s false and incomplete answers in his application, his 
continued dishonesty during part of the admissions process, and his attempts to 
excuse or minimize his conduct at the hearing establish that he does not presently 
possess the integrity to be admitted to practice law in Ohio.  See, e.g., In re 
Application of Calim (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 96, 694 N.E.2d 896; In re Application 
of Salisbury (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 403, 632 N.E.2d 1288.  Panepinto is permitted 
to reapply to take the July 1999 bar examination upon the submission of new 
applications to register as a candidate for admission to the practice of law and to 
take the bar examination, and upon further submission to a new character and 
fitness examination.1 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. 
FOOTNOTE: 
1. 
We also overrule Panepinto’s motion for the record to remain confidential. 
__________________ 
 
COOK, J., dissenting.  I would not permit this applicant to reapply for 
admission. 
 
MOYER, C.J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. 
__________________ 
 
5
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting.  Because I believe that Panepinto has 
demonstrated that he does not have the requisite fitness and character to be 
admitted to the practice of law, I respectfully dissent. 
 
Had he admitted to his deceptive acts, I would agree with the majority.  But 
his continued deception in the application process and his refusal to accept the 
responsibility for these misdeeds demonstrates a deeper character flaw that cannot 
be cured by time. 
 
A lawyer must be honest, ethical, and above reproach.  Panepinto clearly 
has none of these qualities.  Therefore, I would permanently deny his application 
to take the bar exam.