Case Title: In re Application of Head

Citation: 2007-Ohio-2550

Docket Number: 20070353

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2007-05-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Application of Head, 114 Ohio St.3d 29, 2007-Ohio-2550.] 
 
 
IN RE APPLICATION OF HEAD. 
[Cite as In re Application of Head, 114 Ohio St.3d 29, 2007-Ohio-2550.] 
Applicant attempted to exert improper influence in appealing denial of her 
request for special testing conditions — Disapproval of application to 
take February 2007 bar exam — Applicant may apply to take July 2007 
bar exam. 
(No. 2007-0353 — Submitted April 17, 2007 — Decided May 30, 2007.) 
ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character 
and Fitness of the Supreme Court, No. 337. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This cause is before us on the application of Kenya Danielle Head 
to take the Ohio bar examination and the recommendation of the Board of 
Commissioners on Character and Fitness. 
{¶ 2} The applicant first applied to take the bar examination that was 
administered in July 2006.  The board did not immediately approve her character 
and fitness because of allegations that (1) she had attempted to exert improper 
influence in appealing the denial of her request for special testing conditions to 
accommodate her disability and (2) she had failed to adequately disclose her 
disability as required in bar application materials.  The board did not resolve these 
issues prior to the July 2006 bar exam, and the applicant subsequently applied to 
take the bar examination that was administered February 28 through March 1, 
2007. 
{¶ 3} A panel of the board heard the cause, and on February 9, 2007, the 
board adopted the panel’s recommendation and recommended disapproval of the 
application to take the February exam.  The board also recommended, however, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
that we permit the applicant to apply to take the July 2007 bar examination.  We 
accept the board’s recommendations. 
The Applicant’s Request for Special Accommodations 
{¶ 4} The applicant began attending Capital University Law School 
(“Capital”) in August 2003 and graduated in May 2006.  She applied on 
November 12, 2004, to register as a candidate for admission to the practice of law 
in Ohio.  On March 31, 2006, she applied to take the July 2006 bar examination, 
and shortly afterward, the Butler County Bar Association’s admissions committee 
provisionally approved her character and fitness. 
{¶ 5} The applicant requested that she be provided special testing 
accommodations when she takes the bar exam.  She explained that during her first 
year of law school, she had had difficulty completing examinations within the 
time provided and that she had had panic attacks in the classroom during testing.  
Terry K. Thompson, Ph.D., Capital’s director of counseling services, counseled 
the applicant through one such attack during her first semester final exams.  In 
February 2004, a nurse at Capital University Student Health Center referred the 
applicant to Dr. Debra A. Grayson.  Grayson diagnosed the applicant with 
generalized anxiety, and prescribed medication. 
{¶ 6} Thompson believed that the applicant might also have a learning 
disorder, and she suggested that the applicant see a specialist for an assessment.  
Thompson gave the applicant a list of such specialists, which included Nancy R. 
Krasa, Ph.D.  Over the summer of 2004, Krasa evaluated the applicant by giving 
her a full range of intelligence, cognitive-functioning, and academic-achievement 
tests, and she discovered “distinct cognitive abnormalities” that possibly 
explained the applicant’s inability to complete tests within the usual allowed time.  
She could not reach a precise diagnosis, however, and referred the applicant back 
to her physician.  Krasa also referred the applicant to a reading specialist. 
January Term, 2007 
3 
{¶ 7} The applicant’s condition qualified her for special test-taking 
conditions under Capital’s policy of accommodating students with disabilities.  
During the applicant’s second and third years in law school, she took her exams in 
a room by herself and was given 50 percent more time than other students to 
complete her exams. 
{¶ 8} The applicant asked the Board of Bar Examiners to give her 
similar accommodations when she takes the bar exam.  The applicant submitted a 
report from Krasa on her disability and a report from Thompson on the 
accommodations she had received in law school.  In a May 17, 2006 letter, the 
Board of Bar Examiners denied the applicant’s request, citing a special-
accommodations consultant’s determination that the applicant’s condition did not 
satisfy the definition of disability in the Board of Bar Examiners Policy on 
Applicants with Disabilities.  The letter also advised that the applicant could 
appeal the denial to the board chairman within ten days, that her appeal would be 
“conducted on the basis of the record compiled before the Board,” that she would 
be “limited to a written argument in support of [her] appeal,” and that the 
chairman’s decision would be final. 
{¶ 9} Michael P. Morrison, the Chairman of the Board of Bar 
Examiners, and the applicant knew each other through Morrison’s wife, attorney 
Sarah Morrison.  During the applicant’s first year at Capital, Sarah Morrison had 
supervised the applicant in her work as a law clerk for Chester, Willcox & Saxbe, 
L.L.P.  Sarah Morrison had befriended the applicant, and Michael Morrison 
sometimes joined them for lunch or on other social occasions.  After her clerkship 
ended, the applicant maintained a friendship with the couple, especially with 
Sarah. 
{¶ 10} The applicant decided to appeal the Board of Bar Examiners’ 
decision.  She asked the special-program’s officer for the Board of Bar Examiners 
how to prepare her appeal, but she was not satisfied with his response.  She also 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
consulted Grayson, who wrote a brief synopsis of the applicant’s medical 
condition for use in the appeal, and Thompson, who wrote a more detailed 
account of the applicant’s condition and also explained the special 
accommodations that Capital had afforded the applicant.  In discussions with 
Thompson, the applicant mentioned that she knew someone “involved in the bar 
examination process” and asked Thompson whether it would be inappropriate to 
contact that person.  Thompson replied that she saw nothing wrong with the 
applicant’s asking that person for guidance on what type of evidence she could 
submit with her appeal.  The applicant then decided to ask the Chairman of the 
Board of Bar Examiners, Michael Morrison, how to present her case. 
{¶ 11} On May 25, 2006, the applicant sent a long e-mail to Morrison in 
which she acknowledged that he would “make the final decision about [her] 
appeal” and asked for his guidance in preparing her appeal.  The applicant 
introduced herself by reminding Morrison that she had formerly served as a law 
clerk for his wife.  The applicant then described in great detail the difficulties she 
had experienced in obtaining a diagnosis of and treatment for her disability, the 
difficulties she had had in her studies before Capital arranged to accommodate her 
disability, and her “hysterical” reaction to the letter denying her request for 
special accommodations during the bar examination.  She also pleaded with 
Morrison to grant the requested accommodations, writing, among other desperate 
entreaties, “I simply cannot function under the standard/normal testing 
conditions” and “I have not taken a test under standard conditions for 2 years—to 
start now would destroy me.”  Before ending her one-and-one-half-page, single-
spaced e-mail, the applicant once more referred to her friendship with Morrison’s 
wife (“You can ask Sarah about my character, as she has personally watched me 
transition through school as a very scared, frustrated and academically challenged 
student, to a more confident student, but only after accommodations were made”) 
January Term, 2007 
5 
before concluding the e-mail with the assurance that she was “not asking for any 
‘favors’ ” from him in the disposition of her appeal. 
{¶ 12} The applicant insisted at the panel hearing that she composed this 
e-mail without any intention of influencing Morrison’s decision whether to grant 
her request for special accommodations.  Given the wording of the applicant’s e-
mail, however, neither the panel nor the board believed that the applicant had sent 
her impassioned pleas and repeated references to Morrison’s wife merely to 
obtain Morrison’s guidance regarding appeal procedures.  Indeed, Morrison 
considered the e-mail an attempt to take advantage of their acquaintance, and he 
forwarded it immediately to the secretary of the Board of Bar Examiners.  The 
secretary appointed an acting chairman, and he later denied the applicant’s appeal, 
foreclosing special accommodations. 
{¶ 13} In response to intense questioning during the hearing, the applicant 
ultimately conceded that her e-mail was more than a general inquiry about how to 
prepare an appeal.  In the end, she also recognized the lapse in judgment she had 
shown in privately arguing the merits of her appeal to Morrison and including 
references to his wife.  The board thus found that the applicant had attempted to 
exert improper influence in furtherance of her appeal for special accommodations.  
For the cited reasons, and because the May 17, 2006 denial letter specifically 
explained the appeal process, we also doubt the applicant’s stated explanation for 
e-mailing Morrison. 
The Failure to Disclose 
{¶ 14} The panel and board also found that the applicant had failed to 
disclose her disability on her November 12, 2004 application to register as a 
candidate for bar admission and again on her March 31, 2006 application to take 
the bar examination.  In both applications, the applicant answered no to the 
question “Do you currently have any other condition or impairment * * * that in 
any way affects, or if left untreated might affect, your ability to practice law in a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
competent and professional manner?”  She also answered “no” to the same 
question on the application that she filed on November 1, 2006, to take the 
February 2007 bar exam; however, at that time she additionally reported: 
{¶ 15} “I am currently being treated for a Central Processing Disorder and 
anxiety. * * *.  If left untreated, I could still practice law in a competent and 
professional manner.  However, it is my intention to practice law in a low key 
environment in order to minimize the anxiety, and to control my processing 
disorder, so that I will be an even stronger attorney as I practice law.  I can 
function normally, I just have difficulty processing information and/or 
communications that are delivered rapidly; which is why I have significant 
problems with test taking.  Even with my disorders, I can still practice law in a 
competent and professional manner.” 
{¶ 16} The panel and board found the applicant’s answers irreconcilable 
with her diagnosed conditions and the special testing accommodations she had 
received from Capital.  Neither the panel nor the board, however, specifically 
cited these inconsistencies in justifying the recommendation to disapprove the 
applicant’s character and fitness, and this omission tells us that the panel and 
board accepted the applicant’s explanation for initially failing to disclose her 
disabilities. 
{¶ 17} At the panel hearing, the applicant testified that she answered no to 
the question “Do you currently have any other condition or impairment * * * that 
in any way affects, or if left untreated might affect, your ability to practice law in 
a competent and professional manner?” because she was being treated for her 
condition and, even if she were not being treated, she believed that she could still 
practice law in a competent and professional manner.  Although this response is 
optimistic, given the applicant’s experience with her condition, the fact that she 
disclosed her disability on forms seeking special accommodations, which she 
submitted along with each application to take the bar, shows that she never meant 
January Term, 2007 
7 
to conceal this possible impediment to bar admission.  See Gov.Bar R. 
I(11)(D)(3)(e).  We therefore agree with the panel and board that the applicant’s 
failure to adequately disclose her disability does not reflect negatively on her 
character and fitness to practice law. 
The Board’s Recommendation is Appropriate 
{¶ 18} An applicant for admission to the Ohio bar has the 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.”  
Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(1).  To be approved for admission and to take the bar exam, 
the applicant must have a record of conduct that “justifies the trust of clients, 
adversaries, courts and others with respect to the professional duties owed to them 
and demonstrates that the applicant satisfies the essential eligibility requirements 
for the practice of law as defined by the Board.”  Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3).  
Applicants must establish their ability to exercise good judgment in conducting 
their professional business; to act with a high degree of honesty, integrity, and 
trustworthiness in all professional relationships and with respect to all legal 
obligations; to respect and act in accordance with the law and the Code of 
Professional Responsibility; and to conduct themselves professionally and in a 
manner that engenders respect for the law and the profession.  Supreme Court of 
Ohio, Definitions of Essential Eligibility Requirements for the Practice of Law, 
Requirement Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 10, http://www. sconet.state.oh.us/ admissions/pdf/ 
ESSENTIAL_ELIBIBILITY_REQUIREMENTS.pdf. 
{¶ 19} The applicant disregarded these requirements when she used her 
friendship with the Morrisons to urge the Chairman of the Board of Bar 
Examiners to grant her request for special accommodations.  The board thus 
appropriately recommended disapproval of the applicant’s application to take the 
February 2007 bar examination.  But citing the strength of her character evidence, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
the board further recommended that the applicant be permitted to apply to take the 
July 2007 bar examination.  We also accept this recommendation. 
{¶ 20} Many members of the legal community, including many for whom 
the applicant had worked as a law clerk, wrote letters to express their confidence 
in her personal integrity and professional competence.  Many of the applicant’s 
law school professors, former classmates, and other acquaintances similarly 
attested to the applicant’s character and fitness to practice law.  The testimony of 
Stanton Darling II, the applicant’s second-year civil-procedure professor at 
Capital, illustrates the esteem in which the applicant, even as a recent graduate, is 
held by colleagues. 
{¶ 21} Darling confirmed that the applicant’s disability impaired her test-
taking ability, but he commended her outstanding classroom performance and 
efforts to overcome her disability.  In fact, his high opinion had led him to select 
the applicant as one of his two research assistants for the 2005-2006 academic 
year, and he described her work as timely and excellent.  Darling also reported his 
confidence in the applicant’s integrity, adding that he trusted her completely and 
would recommend her without reservation. 
{¶ 22} Based 
on 
these 
testimonials, 
we 
accept 
the 
board's 
recommendation to disapprove the application and to permit the applicant to 
apply to take the July 2007 bar examination. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Mary Lou Kusel, for the Butler County Bar Association. 
Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter, L.P.A., Geoffrey Stern, and Rasheeda Z. 
Kahn, for the applicant. 
______________________