Case Title: In re Application of Libretti

Citation: 2015-Ohio-4338

Docket Number: 2014-1555

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2015-10-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as In 
re Application of Libretti, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-4338.] 
 
 
 
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-4338 
IN RE APPLICATION OF LIBRETTI. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as In re Application of Libretti, Slip Opinion No.  
2015-Ohio-4338.] 
Attorneys at law—Application to register as a candidate for admission to the 
practice of law—Failure to prove character, fitness, and moral 
qualifications to practice law—Conviction of a felony—Failure to provide 
complete and accurate information about applicant’s past—False 
statements, including omissions—Acts involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, 
or misrepresentation—Violation of a court order—Applicant’s honesty and 
integrity intrinsically suspect—Applicant permanently barred from 
reapplying for admission to the practice of law. 
(No. 2014-1555—Submitted February 25, 2015—Decided October 22, 2015.) 
ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and 
Fitness of the Supreme Court, No. 563. 
___________________________ 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Joseph Victor Libretti Jr. of Cleveland, Ohio, has applied to register 
as a candidate for admission to the practice of law in Ohio.  A two-person panel of 
the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association admissions committee interviewed 
Libretti on June 6, 2013, made a provisional finding that he possessed the requisite 
character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to the practice of law, and 
recommended that his application be approved.  However, the Board of 
Commissioners on Character and Fitness, having held a hearing at which Libretti 
testified and having considered Libretti’s supplemental responses to his character 
and fitness questionnaire, recommends that Libretti’s registration application be 
disapproved and that he be forever barred from reapplying for admission to the 
practice of law in Ohio.  In support of that recommendation, the board cites 
Libretti’s 1992 federal conviction under the “kingpin” statute for his role in 
organizing, managing, or supervising a criminal drug enterprise, his involvement 
in the sale of “spice”—a mix of shredded plant material and man-made chemicals 
that has been touted as a legal alternative to marijuana—following his release from 
prison, and his failure to fully disclose certain aspects of his postrelease conduct as 
required by the terms of his supervised release and by the application to register as 
a candidate for admission to the practice of law in Ohio. 
{¶ 2} Libretti initially objected to the board’s findings of fact and its 
recommendation that he be forever precluded from seeking admission to the Ohio 
bar but has since conceded that he failed to carry his burden of proving that he 
presently possesses the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications to 
practice law.  Thus, the sole issue before this court is whether Libretti should ever 
be permitted to reapply as a candidate for admission to the Ohio bar.  For the 
reasons that follow, we conclude that he should not. 
{¶ 3} As of the time of the board hearing and Libretti’s supplemental 
responses to his character and fitness questionnaire, Libretti was expected to 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
graduate near the top of his class at the Cleveland Marshall College of Law in 
December 2014.  More than two dozen character letters demonstrate that he is well 
liked by fellow students, professors, attorneys, and both past and present employers, 
who describe him as talented, intelligent, and hard working.  While it appears that 
Libretti may possess an advocate’s skills, his conduct during his supervised release 
and throughout this admissions process caused the board to question whether he 
has been fully rehabilitated and whether he will ever possess the requisite character, 
fitness, and moral qualifications to practice law in Ohio. 
{¶ 4} In 1992, Libretti pleaded guilty to a felony count of engaging in a 
continuing criminal enterprise to distribute marijuana and cocaine in violation of 
21 U.S.C. 848.  Multiple other charges against him were dropped and he was 
sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release.  
In early 2008, after serving 16 years, he was released from prison and sent to a 
halfway house in Casper, Wyoming.  He completed his supervised release in May 
2013—approximately 18 months before he was expected to graduate from law 
school. 
{¶ 5} Shortly after his release from prison and while he was on supervised 
release in Wyoming, Libretti began engaging in morally (if not legally) 
questionable conduct involving spice, the man-made marijuana alternative.  At 
first, he used his credit card to finance the spice business of his roommate—a 
convicted drug dealer whom he had met in a halfway house after his release from 
prison—and ran the proceeds of that business through his bank account to avoid 
having them garnished to satisfy his roommate’s child-support obligations.  Libretti 
later stepped in to manage the business on a temporary basis when his roommate 
went to prison for a probation violation.  But shortly after his roommate’s release, 
authorities searched the home that the two men shared and seized quantities of 
spice, chemicals to manufacture spice, and $7,200 in cash.  The following month, 
his roommate committed suicide, and Libretti continued his business—selling spice 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
and its components to buyers in Wyoming even after he moved to Ohio in August 
2010 to attend law school.  He also recruited a known methamphetamine dealer to 
assist him in the endeavor. 
{¶ 6} The terms and conditions of Libretti’s supervised release required him 
to report his income to his probation officer and prohibited him from associating 
with persons engaged in criminal activity and with convicted felons.  Because his 
roommate had set up a trust for the business revenue and advised Libretti that there 
was no need to report the income as the money legally belonged to the trust, Libretti 
chose not to report his spice income to his probation officer.  Although he told his 
admissions-committee interviewers that he had fully complied with the terms of his 
supervised release, he later admitted that his failure to report the significant income 
generated by his spice business and his association with a known methamphetamine 
dealer violated those terms. 
{¶ 7} In November 2010, Libretti learned that the United States Drug 
Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) had issued a public notice that it would be 
scheduling five chemicals used to make spice, including one called JWH-018.  He 
testified that he set out to liquidate his supply of JWH-018 before the DEA took 
action.  But three months into his claimed liquidation, he ordered an additional 
$17,500 of that substance for a customer only to cancel the order when he learned 
that the DEA’s scheduling order was imminent.  The next day, March 1, 2011, the 
DEA scheduled JWH-018 and four other chemicals as controlled substances, 
making it illegal to possess or sell them in the United States. 
{¶ 8} After the DEA order went into effect, Libretti gathered the spice and 
the JWH-018 that remained in his possession, packaged them in a U.S. Mail priority 
mailing box, and addressed it to his lawyer in Casper, Wyoming.  Instead of mailing 
the package to his attorney or finding a safe and legal method to dispose of the 
chemicals, Libretti placed the package in a storage closet at his Cleveland, Ohio 
January Term, 2015 
 
5
apartment building.  His continued possession of this controlled substance violated 
the law and the terms of his supervised release. 
{¶ 9} In late March 2011, Libretti was indicted in Wyoming on a single 
count of conspiracy to distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine, though 
he was later acquitted.  After his Cleveland apartment had been searched and he 
had instructed his attorney to request immunity, he directed authorities to the box 
of spice and JWH-018 that remained in his apartment-building storage closet. 
{¶ 10} Although Libretti repeatedly claimed that his spice business was 
completely legal, he did not disclose its existence on his registration application in 
response to Question 23C, which asked, “Have you ever been engaged in your own 
business or been a director, an officer, a more than five percent shareholder, a 
partner or a joint venture [sic] in any business enterprise?”).  He did, however, 
mention his involvement in an “herbal incense” business during his admissions-
committee interview.  But even then, he failed to disclose that he had recruited a 
known methamphetamine dealer to distribute his product, had continued to run the 
enterprise after his roommate died, had used a trust to disguise income, and had 
possessed JWH-018 after it became a controlled substance. 
{¶ 11} Libretti also failed to disclose a 2011 request for immunity on his 
registration application in response to Question 20(B), which asked, “Have you 
ever been granted immunity from prosecution?”  He testified that although he had 
requested immunity, he had never received any confirmation that his request had 
been granted, and therefore he concluded that no disclosure was required.  Given 
an April 6, 2011 DEA report stating that the assistant United States attorney had 
received approval to grant Libretti immunity with regard to the drug evidence 
seized from his Cleveland apartment on March 30, 2011, and Libretti’s “highly 
tuned distrust” of prosecutors, law-enforcement personnel, and governmental 
agencies, the board did not believe his claimed ignorance.  And the supplemental 
answers that Libretti submitted in May 2014 to address the immunity issue proved 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
to be even less informative than his testimony, which the board deemed “evasive 
and not believable.”  In the end, the board determined that Libretti’s omissions 
throughout the admissions process were deliberate. 
{¶ 12} The board was also struck by what it described as Libretti’s “amoral 
viewpoint” regarding his criminal activities and his subsequent spice operation.  
One of his admissions-committee interviewers testified that while Libretti 
described his conduct as stupid and foolish and recognized the negative impact it 
had had on his own life and the lives of his family members, he expressed no real 
concern about the harm that his conduct had visited upon the countless others who 
were affected by his past criminal activities or his sale of spice. 
{¶ 13} Libretti has also engaged in multiple appeals of virtually all aspects 
of his criminal sentence except the statutory minimum prison term and has filed 
numerous civil actions challenging various searches and forfeitures of his property.  
See United States v. Libretti, 28 Fed.Appx. 754, 756-757 (10th Cir.2001) (noting 
Libretti’s persistent challenging of his guilty plea and the forfeiture aspect of his 
sentence and citing eight separate cases, including six civil actions, in which he 
raised those challenges—not counting the issues immediately before the court or 
Libretti’s direct appeal challenging the forfeiture order, which was affirmed in 
United States v. Libretti, 38 F.3d 523 (10th Cir.1994), and Libretti v. United States, 
516 U.S. 29, 116 S.Ct. 356, 133 L.Ed.2d 271 (1995)).  While the board recognized 
that an individual is entitled to pursue the vindication of his rights in a court of law, 
it believed that Libretti “may have crossed the line into litigiousness,” given that 
many of the claims were duplicative and were dismissed, some on res judicata or 
collateral-estoppel grounds.  The board found that this pattern of repetitive 
litigation did not reflect a person who has respect for the law, but rather a person 
who uses it as a weapon to harass others. 
Disposition 
January Term, 2015 
 
7
{¶ 14} 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.  And when an applicant’s background includes a felony conviction, 
the applicant bears the burden of proving not only that he is morally fit to practice 
law but also that he is fully and completely rehabilitated.  In re Application of 
Poignon, 
132 
Ohio 
St.3d 
395, 
2012-Ohio-2915, 
972 
N.E.2d 
580,  
¶ 16, citing In re Application of Keita, 74 Ohio St.3d 46, 48, 656 N.E.2d 620 (1995), 
citing In re Application of Davis, 38 Ohio St.2d 273, 275, 313 N.E.2d 363 (1974). 
{¶ 15} Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3) provides a nonexhaustive list of factors to be 
considered in assessing an applicant’s character and fitness for admission to the 
bar.  Among the enumerated factors, the following are relevant here:  (1) 
commission or conviction of a felony, (2) failure to provide complete and accurate 
information concerning the applicant’s past, (3) false statements, including 
omissions, (4) acts involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and 
(5) violation of a court order.  See Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3)(a), (g), (h), (i), and (m). 
{¶ 16} Libretti’s criminal record is significant.  Although he was charged 
with multiple offenses, he pleaded guilty to just one charge after a week of trial.  
According to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, he received 
a favorable plea agreement despite what the court described as “overwhelming 
evidence of his guilt” and was sentenced to 20 years in prison—the minimum 
sentence for the sole offense for which he was convicted.  United States v. Libretti, 
38 F.3d at 529-530.  After serving 16 years in prison for running a criminal drug 
enterprise, he engaged in a pattern of conduct that may have been technically legal 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
but was morally questionable, that mirrored the conduct that led to his conviction 
(though with substances that were apparently legal at the time), and that violated at 
least three terms of his court-ordered supervised release.  Yet throughout this 
proceeding, Libretti has touted the facts that he was never charged with a violation 
of his supervised release and that he was “successfully discharged.”  In truth, he 
violated multiple terms of his supervised release but did not get caught.  We expect 
more from candidates seeking admission to the bar. 
{¶ 17} Rather than fully disclosing the mistakes that he has made since his 
release from prison, Libretti has intentionally concealed and misrepresented them 
during every step of the admissions process. 
{¶ 18} While Libretti has acknowledged that his honesty and credibility are 
relevant in determining whether he possesses the character and fitness necessary to 
practice law, he has also espoused the view that the onus was on the questioner to 
ask the right questions before he would give a complete answer.  Such a view is the 
antithesis of the honesty and candor that the admissions process demands. 
{¶ 19} We find that the conduct identified by the board raises serious 
concerns about Libretti’s ability to satisfy at least four of the ten essential eligibility 
requirements for the practice of law, including (1) the ability to exercise good  
judgment in conducting one’s professional business, (2) the ability to conduct 
oneself with a high degree of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness in all 
professional relationships and with respect to all legal obligations, (3) the ability to 
conduct oneself with respect for and in accordance with the law and the Ohio Rules 
of Professional Conduct, and (4) the ability to conduct oneself professionally and 
in a manner that engenders respect for the law and the profession.  See Supreme 
Court of Ohio, Definitions of Essential Eligibility Requirements for the Practice of 
Law, 
Requirement 
Nos. 
3, 
4, 
5, 
and 
10, 
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/AttySvcs/admissions/pdf/ESSENTIAL_ELIG
IBILITY_REQUREMENTS.pdf. 
January Term, 2015 
 
9
{¶ 20} We have recognized that “[a]n applicant whose honesty and integrity 
are intrinsically suspect cannot be admitted to the Ohio bar.”  In re Application of 
Aboyade, 
103 
Ohio 
St.3d 
318, 
2004-Ohio-4773, 
815 
N.E.2d 
383,  
¶ 16, citing In re Application of Cvammen, 102 Ohio St.3d 13, 2004-Ohio-1584, 
806 N.E.2d 498, ¶ 22.  For that reason, in Aboyade we permanently denied the 
applicant admission to the Ohio bar based on a pattern of dishonest conduct that 
included falsification of law-school transcripts, false testimony under oath, 
disbarment in another state, and the applicant’s failure to disclose material facts in 
her original and supplemental applications.  Aboyade at ¶ 10-16.  Likewise, in 
Cvammen, we forever barred an applicant who gave inconsistent testimony 
throughout the admissions process in an effort to explain away questionable 
conduct that resulted in his forced resignation from employment.  Cvammen at 
 ¶ 18-22.  Because we find that Libretti’s ethical infractions are longstanding and 
so permeate the admissions process that his honesty and integrity are shown to be 
intrinsically suspect, we conclude that we must permanently deny his application 
to register as a candidate for admission to the Ohio bar. 
{¶ 21} Accordingly, we overrule Libretti’s objections, adopt the board’s 
findings of fact, disapprove Libretti’s pending application, and forever bar him 
from reapplying for the privilege of practicing law in this state. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and KENNEDY, JJ., 
concur. 
FRENCH and O’NEILL, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part. 
_________________ 
FRENCH, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. 
{¶ 22} Joseph Victor Libretti Jr. concedes that he has not carried his burden 
of demonstrating that he presently possesses the requisite character, fitness, and 
moral qualifications for admission to the practice of law, and I concur with the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
10 
disapproval of his pending application.  But I respectfully dissent from the 
majority’s judgment to forever bar Libretti from reapplying for the privilege of 
practicing law in this state. 
{¶ 23} To be sure, Libretti’s record is troubling.  It contains a serious felony 
conviction, morally questionable participation in and operation of a spice business 
following Libretti’s release from prison, concealment of information related to that 
business in violation of the terms of his supervised release, and a lack of honesty 
and candor with respect to potentially damaging information during the admissions 
process.  Nevertheless, I cannot agree that Libretti deserves “what is essentially a 
death sentence” to the legal career to which he aspires.  In re Application of 
Corrigan, 47 Ohio St.3d 32, 37, 546 N.E.2d 1315 (1989) (Sweeney, J., dissenting). 
{¶ 24} A prior felony conviction does not necessarily demonstrate that an 
applicant lacks the present moral character necessary to practice law, In re 
Application of Poignon, 132 Ohio St.3d 395, 2012-Ohio-2915, 972 N.E.2d 580,  
¶ 16, let alone that the applicant will never possess the necessary character, see In 
re Application of Davis, 61 Ohio St.2d 371, 403 N.E.2d 189 (1980) (approving, 
over the recommendation of the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness, 
an applicant who had been convicted of a felony).  An applicant with a prior felony 
conviction, however, bears the additional burden of proving full and complete 
rehabilitation.  Poignon at ¶ 16, citing In re Application of Keita, 74 Ohio St.3d 46, 
48, 656 N.E.2d 620 (1995), citing In re Application of Davis, 38 Ohio St.2d 273, 
275, 313 N.E.2d 363 (1974).  That rule manifests the common belief that a person 
who has committed bad acts in the past may be rehabilitated to the extent necessary 
to engage in the practice of law.  Imposing a permanent bar upon Libretti because 
he has not yet demonstrated complete rehabilitation and because he does not 
presently possess the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications is 
antithetical to that belief.  
 
January Term, 2015 
 
11 
{¶ 25} Libretti’s postrelease conduct and lack of candor during the 
admissions process weigh against a finding that Libretti is fully and completely 
rehabilitated.  They also independently weigh against a finding that he presently 
possesses the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to 
the bar.  As with a felony conviction, however, dishonesty during the admissions 
process does not necessarily require permanent denial of the opportunity to apply 
for bar admission.  Even where an applicant’s record includes both prior 
convictions and instances of dishonesty and deceit in the admissions process, we 
have permitted reapplication after a specified period and, in some instances, upon 
compliance with stated conditions.  See In re Application of Worthy, 136 Ohio St.3d 
142, 2013-Ohio-3018, 991 N.E.2d 1131, ¶ 9, 14; In re Application of Corrigan, 123 
Ohio St.3d 173, 2009-Ohio-4183, 915 N.E.2d 300, ¶ 9, 13, 17. 
{¶ 26} We have declined to impose a draconian, permanent bar to 
admission when we have not been persuaded that the applicant “completely lacks 
rehabilitation potential.”  In re Application of Holzhauser, 66 Ohio St.3d 43, 46, 
607 N.E.2d 833 (1993); see also In re Application of Clark, 135 Ohio St.3d 252, 
2013-Ohio-732, 985 N.E.2d 1266, ¶ 14 (finding a “glimmer of hope” that the 
applicant could mature and learn from past mistakes, based on “belated candor in 
acknowledging his struggle to be honest”). 
{¶ 27} Here, Libretti has accepted responsibility for the criminal conduct 
that led to his lengthy prison sentence and has been open with law-school 
classmates, professors, and employers about that conduct and its consequences.  He 
has spoken publicly about his past to lawyers and judges and has served as a 
presenter at anti-drug and health-awareness programs.  Libretti has also 
acknowledged, albeit belatedly, his lack of honesty in the admissions process and 
admits that he should have been open and candid about his spice business.  While 
Libretti’s acknowledgment of his shortcomings in no way undermines their 
seriousness, it does indicate the capacity for rehabilitation. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
12 
{¶ 28} In determining whether Libretti might one day prove that he 
possesses the necessary qualities for admission to the bar, we should not downplay 
Libretti’s stellar academic performance and the numerous endorsements of his 
ethical and professional conduct in the workplace that appear in the record.  An 
applicant’s performance in past and current professional endeavors, including his 
performance in academic pursuits and ability to function in a work environment, is 
highly probative of the ability to function honestly and effectively in the practice 
of law.  Davis, 61 Ohio St.2d at 374, 403 N.E.2d 189.  The record here contains 
supportive letters from Libretti’s classmates, professors, and past and present 
employers.  Of particular note, eight attorneys from the Cuyahoga County Public 
Defender’s Office have filed an amicus brief praising Libretti’s judgment, work 
ethic, and enthusiasm for the office’s work.  When the amicus brief was filed, 
Libretti had served as an intern in the public defender’s office for over 18 months, 
and that office has agreed to continue supervising Libretti as a law clerk to further 
oversee his professional development.  Letters from Libretti’s supervising attorneys 
commend his commitment, high ethical standards, and passion and respect for the 
law and individual constitutional rights, as well as his special understanding of and 
compassion for the office’s clients.  In my view, the record supports the possibility 
that with additional time, Libretti may be able to prove that he has the necessary 
attributes to engage in the practice of law. 
{¶ 29} The denial of Libretti’s pending application, with an allowance that 
he be permitted to apply for the 2017 bar examination, would adequately protect 
the public and the integrity of the legal profession while not forever slamming the 
doors of that profession in the face of a potential asset to the Ohio bar.  Of course, 
Libretti would still face a high hurdle in satisfying the character and fitness 
requirements upon reapplication, given the evidence weighing against him.  It may 
be that in light of his past behavior, Libretti is never able to produce clear and 
convincing evidence that he is qualified to be a member of the Ohio bar.  But in 
January Term, 2015 
 
13 
weighing his acknowledged past transgressions against the demonstrated 
dedication, academic success, and professional workplace conduct that Libretti has 
demonstrated in recent years, I cannot agree that this court should forever deny him 
the opportunity to meet that burden. 
{¶ 30} For these reasons, I would deny Libretti’s application but allow him 
to apply to take the July 2017 bar examination.  Accordingly, I concur in part and 
dissent in part. 
 
O’NEILL, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 
_________________ 
Deborah Zaccaro Hoffman, for applicant. 
Paul G. Crist, for the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association. 
James F. Lentz, for amici curiae Citizens’ Institute for Law and Public 
Policy and CURE-Ohio, in support of applicant. 
Robert J. Wall, for amicus curiae Ohio Justice & Policy Center, in support 
of applicant. 
Robert L. Tobik, John T. Martin, Erica Cunliffe, Jeffrey M. Gamso, Linda 
Hricko, Paul Kuzmins, Christopher Scott Maher, and Cullen Sweeney, as amici 
curiae, in support of applicant. 
Pamela Daiker-Middaugh, Avery Friedman, C. Timothy Murphy, Amy 
Hollaway, Carole Heyward, Doron Kalir, Kenneth Kowalski, Stephen Lazarus, 
Kevin O’Neill, John Plecnik, Peter Sayegh, Daniel Dropko, Joseph Buckley, 
Christopher Maher, and Dennis Terez, as amici curiae, in support of applicant. 
_________________