Case Title: In re Application of Mitchell

Citation: 2008-Ohio-3236

Docket Number: 20080521

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2008-07-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Application of Mitchell, 119 Ohio St.3d 38, 2008-Ohio-3236.] 
 
 
 
IN RE APPLICATION OF MITCHELL. 
[Cite as In re Application of Mitchell, 119 Ohio St.3d 38, 2008-Ohio-3236.] 
Attorneys — Character and fitness — Applicant lodged questionable accusations 
and legal claims while appearing pro se in litigation — Applicant may 
apply to take the February 2009 bar examination. 
(No. 2008-0521 – Submitted May 6, 2008 – Decided July 3, 2008.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and  
Fitness of the Supreme Court, No. 376. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} The applicant, Geoffrey Christopher Mitchell, M.D., of Columbus, 
Ohio, is a candidate for admission to the Ohio bar and has applied to take the 
Ohio bar examination.  The Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness 
recommends that we disapprove, for now, his application to take the bar exam, 
based on findings that he lodged questionable accusations and legal claims after 
suing for his discharge from practice in a hospital emergency room.  We accept 
the board’s recommendation to disapprove but also allow the applicant to apply to 
take the February 2009 bar examination, providing he first completes a legal 
ethics and professionalism course at a law school accredited by the American Bar 
Association (“ABA”). 
{¶ 2} The applicant is a physician who entered Capital University Law 
School in 2003 after a long career in medicine.  The applicant registered as a 
candidate for admission to the Ohio bar, and in 2005, the Columbus Bar 
Association’s admissions committee provisionally approved his character, fitness, 
and moral qualifications in accordance with Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3) and (4).  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Upon graduation, the applicant applied to take the bar exam that was to be 
administered in July 2007. 
{¶ 3} Before the applicant could qualify to sit for the exam, he had to 
obtain the admissions committee’s final approval pursuant to Gov.Bar R. I(3)(C), 
including a favorable review of his supplemental character questionnaire and 
related materials.  During this process, a lawyer complained to the committee, 
alleging that the applicant had lodged false claims against him, his associates, and 
his clients — a physicians’ group under contract to provide hospital emergency-
room services, and others — after the clients successfully defended against his 
tort claims.  Following an investigation of these allegations, the admissions 
committee 
expressed 
misgivings 
about 
the 
applicant’s 
judgment 
by 
recommending disapproval of his bar application. 
{¶ 4} The 
applicant 
appealed 
the 
admission 
committee’s 
recommendation, and a three-member panel of the board heard the case in 
January 2008.  See Gov.Bar R. I(12)(C).  Finding that the applicant had 
“embarked on a course of unprofessional and illogical conduct” following the loss 
of his tort claims by pursuing “repeated, unwarranted attacks” against opposing 
counsel and others, the panel concluded that the applicant at that time lacked the 
qualifications to practice law in this state.  Because the applicant had “begun to 
understand that he cannot make serious allegations of misconduct against 
opposing counsel and parties without evidence to support the allegations,” 
however, the panel recommended that the applicant be permitted to apply for the 
bar February 2009 bar exam with further ethics instruction.  The board adopted 
the panel’s findings and recommendation. 
{¶ 5} Since the board filed its report, the parties have waived any 
objections and jointly asked that we adopt the board’s findings of fact, 
conclusions of law, and recommendation. 
I.  Basis for the Panel and Board Decisions 
January Term, 2008 
3 
A.  The Underlying Dispute 
{¶ 6} The applicant formerly practiced as an attending physician at 
Riverside Hospital in Columbus, most recently in affiliation with Mid-Ohio 
Emergency Services, L.L.C. (“MOES”), and before that in affiliation with 
Olentangy Emergency Physicians.  MOES is the physicians’ group that became 
responsible in September 1998 for the hospital’s emergency-room services under 
the oversight of MedPartners, a large physician-management company.  MOES 
took over at Riverside after Riverside and Grant Medical Center merged and 
became part of OhioHealth. 
{¶ 7} The applicant opposed OhioHealth’s decision to have MedPartners 
oversee emergency-room services at Riverside.  During negotiations between 
OhioHealth and MedPartners, the applicant circulated a memo suggesting that the 
partnership would not be in the best interest of the emergency-room physicians.  
OhioHealth and MedPartners ultimately finalized a deal, however, and the 
applicant continued to work in the emergency room, albeit then as a MOES 
employee.  The relationship did not last long. 
{¶ 8} On November 20, 1998, MOES dismissed the applicant for 
purportedly having disclosed confidential patient information in violation of the 
hospital’s quality-control policies.  The applicant viewed his discharge as unjust 
and as the result of a complaint he had lodged about the poor care that he 
perceived one emergency-room patient had received.  In 1999, the applicant sued 
MOES, Grant/Riverside, and others for his termination, arguing in the main that 
defendants had violated public policy by terminating his employment for raising 
legitimate concerns about patient care. 
B.  The MOES Litigation 
{¶ 9} In the preliminary stages of the applicant’s suit, the Franklin 
County Court of Common Pleas granted summary judgment in the defendants’ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
favor.  In 2004, the Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed.  After the loss on 
appeal, the applicant’s counsel withdrew from the case. 
{¶ 10} By the time of the court of appeals’ decision, the applicant was in 
his second year of law school.  With the departure of his lawyer, the applicant 
decided to proceed pro se in the MOES litigation.  He moved this court to grant 
discretionary review of his appeal, which we denied.  He then filed a motion 
under Civ.R. 60(B) asking the trial court to vacate the order granting summary 
judgment.  The motion was overruled.  The applicant then began filing motions 
and discovery requests anew, evidently in response to defendants’ motions for 
sanctions, including asking for leave to file another motion to vacate.  The 
motions for sanctions and to vacate remained pending as of the panel hearing. 
C.  The Cause for the Panel and Board Concerns 
{¶ 11} The applicant engaged in the conduct that implicated his fitness to 
practice law while representing himself.  He lodged questionable if not baseless 
claims of impropriety against opposing counsel in the MOES litigation.  He also 
attempted to show a conspiracy by making an untenable connection between his 
claims against MOES and the wrongdoing of a former MedPartners chairman 
who had been indicted on federal charges of bribery. 
{¶ 12} In adopting the panel’s report, the board described the applicant’s 
lapses in judgment relative to opposing counsel: 
{¶ 13} “On repeated occasions in court filings and in correspondence, the 
Applicant accused opposing counsel of engaging in fraud and other unethical 
conduct.  The Applicant is of the belief that certain information was not disclosed 
in response to interrogatories and deposition questions his counsel propounded 
during the MOES Litigation.  After reviewing the matters, the Panel cannot 
conclude that information was intentionally concealed or withheld from the 
Applicant and his counsel.  At best, the defendants and their counsel did not 
provide certain information to vague and ambiguous questions that the Applicant 
January Term, 2008 
5 
believes should have been provided.  What is more troubling is the manner in 
which the Applicant chose to address his concerns.  When the Applicant became 
aware of certain information that he believed should have been provided in 
response to interrogatories and deposition questions, he could have simply 
contacted opposing counsel to resolve the issue. Instead, the Applicant repeatedly 
attacked opposing counsel in pleadings and letters sent to various governmental 
agencies, including a grievance filed against one of the opposing attorneys as well 
as a letter to the Franklin County Prosecutor.  Finally, the Applicant wrote a letter 
to the managing partner of one of defense counsel’s firms.  In that letter, the 
Applicant accused the law firm of engaging in fraudulent and illegal conduct.  
After reviewing the entire record presented in this matter, the Panel can only 
conclude that the Applicant’s accusations are without merit and the Applicant has 
displayed incredibly poor judgment in the manner in which he handled his 
concerns.” 
{¶ 14} As to the applicant’s attempt to tie his discharge case to the 
misdeeds of the former MedPartner chairman, the board observed: 
{¶ 15} “During the course of the MOES Litigation, MedPartners’ 
Chairman, Richard Scrushy (‘Scrushy’), was indicted on a range of federal 
charges stemming from his efforts to bribe the (former) Governor of the State of 
Alabama.  Apparently, Scrushy either paid or attempted to pay the Governor of 
the State of Alabama to place Scrushy or his designee on a state board that dealt 
with medical contracts and hospital licensing.  The record in this case establishes 
that Scrushy was clearly a bad actor who committed serious crimes.  However, 
there is no evidence in the record whatsoever that indicates that the wrongdoing 
of Scrushy and MedPartners extended to MedPartners’ dealings with 
Grant/Riverside and the formation of MOES.  Despite this lack of evidence, the 
Applicant has been steadfast in his attempts to persuade the court in the MOES 
Litigation and numerous governmental agencies that the merits of his case should 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
be reconsidered in light of the scandal involving Scrushy and MedPartners.  The 
Applicant is convinced that the hiring of [a consultant formerly associated with 
MedPartners] to negotiate on behalf of Ohio Health while [the consultant] was 
still receiving compensation from MedPartners amounts to fraud which he has 
referred to as either a bribe or a kickback.  The Applicant’s contentions are not 
supported by any evidence and he does not appear to understand that his mere 
belief, even if it is genuine, is not sufficient to support his allegations of fraud in 
the MOES Litigation.” 
II.  Disposition 
{¶ 16} 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).  
Necessarily, “[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. 
{¶ 17} An applicant’s tendency to abuse the legal process is one of the 
factors upon which we may rely in disapproving his or her qualifications for 
taking the bar examination.  Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3)(j).  For this reason, an 
applicant’s dubious judgment in repeatedly filing unwarranted legal claims, 
among other much more egregious failings, has resulted in our disapproving his 
application to take the bar.  In re Application of Keita (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 46, 
47, 656 N.E.2d 620 (applicant’s litigious conduct, combined with his significant 
criminal record, apparently serious and untreated psychological problems, and 
lack of candor about his past precluded him from ever reapplying for the bar 
examination).  But this applicant’s case is not nearly as serious as In re 
January Term, 2008 
7 
Application of Keita — apart from his actions in the MOES litigation, this 
applicant’s credentials and conduct are without reproach. 
{¶ 18} Even so, the applicant’s unwarranted attacks against opposing 
counsel and repeated and unfounded contentions in the MOES litigation revealed 
a singular lack of the good judgment necessary to the practice of law.  To his 
credit, however, the applicant seemed to acknowledge this failing at the panel 
hearing, and we take his decision not to object to and, in fact, accept the board’s 
report as further evidence of his insight.  We thus consider the applicant an 
acceptable risk for reapplication. 
{¶ 19} We accept the board’s recommendation to disapprove.  The 
applicant may apply to take the February 2009 bar examination, providing he first 
completes a legal ethics and professionalism course at an ABA-accredited law 
school. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Christensen, Christensen, Donchatz, Kettlewell & Owens, L.L.P., Charles 
J. Kettlewell, and Kenneth R. Donchatz, for applicant. 
Sowald, Sowald & Clouse and Eric Johnson; and Benesch, Friedlander, 
Coplan & Aronoff and Martha J. Sweterlitsch, for the Columbus Bar Association. 
______________________