Case Title: In re Application of Aboyade

Citation: 2004-Ohio-4773

Docket Number: 20031367

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2004-09-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Application of Aboyade, 103 Ohio St.3d 318, 2004-Ohio-4773.] 
 
 
IN RE APPLICATION OF ABOYADE. 
[Cite as In re Application of Aboyade, 103 Ohio St.3d 318, 2004-Ohio-4773.] 
Attorneys at law — Application to register as a candidate for admission to the 
practice of law in Ohio — Application permanently denied, when. 
(No. 2003-1367 — Submitted May 11, 2004 — Decided September 22, 2004.) 
ON REPORT of the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness of the 
Supreme Court, No. 248. 
_____________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Applicant, Kimberli Christine Aboyade, was born December 9, 
1971, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  She obtained a law degree from the University 
of South Carolina in May 1999 and was subsequently admitted to the practice of 
law in South Carolina. 
{¶2} 
On March 1, 2001, applicant filed an Application to Register as a 
Candidate for Admission to the Practice of Law in Ohio.  On March 21, 2001, she 
applied to take the Ohio bar examination.  On June 15, 2001, members of the 
Columbus Bar Association’s admissions committee interviewed applicant, and on 
June 20, 2001, the committee approved of her character, fitness, and moral 
qualifications for admission to the practice of law in Ohio.  Gov.Bar R. 
I(11)(D)(2).  Applicant took the July 2001 bar examination and, by letter dated 
November 1, 2001, received confirmation of having passed.  Applicant was never 
administered the oath, however, because this court did not receive certification of 
applicant’s passing score on the Multistate Professional Responsibility 
Examination. 
{¶3} 
During the bar application process, applicant accepted employment 
with Squire, Sanders, & Dempsey, L.L.P., and began work in Columbus for that 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
law firm on February 12, 2001.  According to the law firm’s employment records, 
applicant was discharged on November 2, 2001, for poor job performance.  In 
addition, an internal memorandum composed by a co-worker recounted 
applicant’s strange behavior after the events of Tuesday, September 11, 2001. 
{¶4} 
According to the memorandum, applicant had represented to co-
workers on that Tuesday that she had a good friend who had been working in the 
World Trade Center and that authorities could not account for this person after the 
collapse.  Applicant also indicated that she had two unaccounted-for relatives who 
may have been on targeted flights.  Applicant told the co-worker that after she 
finished some work, she was going to drive to New York. 
{¶5} 
Several days later, on Friday, September 14, 2001, applicant called 
the co-worker to say that she had returned to her apartment in Columbus and was 
able to return to work.  Applicant reported that she had driven to Virginia to pick 
up her friend’s mother and then driven to New York City so that her friend’s 
mother could identify the remains.  Applicant said that the mother had viewed the 
remains, but they were not those of her daughter, and applicant had driven her 
friend’s mother back to Virginia.  Applicant also mentioned that her prior 
employer, Weil, Gotschal & Manges, L.L.P., of New York City, had arranged to 
transport applicant and her friend’s mother into Manhattan by helicopter.  The co-
worker told applicant that she need not return to work right away. 
{¶6} 
By the following week, elements of applicant’s story had aroused 
her co-worker’s suspicions.  The claim that the friend’s mother had immediately 
left New York City, rather than staying to try and find her daughter, seemed 
implausible to him.  The co-worker also doubted that applicant could have driven 
from Columbus to Virginia to New York City and back in the amount of time that 
she claimed.  In addition, a very long voice mail that applicant had left while she 
was supposedly in the car driving back to Columbus had not sounded to the co-
worker as though applicant was actually in a car at all.  And in later describing to 
January Term, 2004 
3 
the co-worker a New York hospital where she claimed to have witnessed burn 
victims left in hallways due to the “chaos,” the co-worker thought it odd that 
applicant could not remember the hospital’s name.  Also, by the time of their 
conversation, only a few dozen people had actually been hospitalized in New 
York City.  Moreover, the co-worker had been unable to find the name of 
applicant’s friend among the victims identified on a website providing this 
information.  Finally, it was discovered that applicant had used her office 
computer during the time that she claimed to have been in New York City. 
{¶7} 
The law firm threatened applicant with dismissal unless she 
corroborated the reasons for her absence with a letter from her friend’s employer 
verifying the injuries the friend had sustained on September 11, 2001, the medical 
treatment the friend had received, and her friend’s consent to the release of this 
information.  Applicant promised to verify her whereabouts.  She later reported to 
the law firm that she was in Pennsylvania to care for an ill grandparent and 
claimed that the requested documentation was being held with her other mail at 
the post office.  The law firm ultimately dismissed applicant, effective November 
15, 2001, because she did not explain her disappearance. 
{¶8} 
One month later, in December 2001, the Pittsburgh office of Jones 
Day interviewed applicant and offered her employment.  She accepted and joined 
that law firm as an associate in January 2002.  As part of her application, 
applicant submitted a transcript of what she claimed were her grades in law 
school.  In the first week of March 2002, however, her new employer obtained 
applicant’s official transcript from the University of South Carolina Law School 
and noticed startling discrepancies.  Applicant’s submission had been “altered to 
reflect materially enhanced academic performance.”  Applicant later admitted that 
she had fabricated the copy of her law school transcript that she gave to Jones 
Day.  Applicant is no longer employed at that law firm. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶9} 
An associate of Jones Day reported this incident to Ohio’s 
Disciplinary Counsel, who reported it to the Board of Commissioners on 
Character and Fitness.  The board invoked its investigatory authority pursuant to 
Gov.Bar R. I(10)(B)(2)(e) and appointed a panel of the board to hear the cause.  
On December 19, 2002, after a January 10, 2003 hearing date was set, applicant 
asked to withdraw her application to the Ohio bar.  In explanation, applicant 
related that she had lived in Ohio for only several months during 2001, she had 
since relocated to Pennsylvania, and she did not intend to return to Ohio.  
Applicant further explained that she was considering career alternatives due to the 
stress of an ongoing investigation into her fitness to practice law in South 
Carolina. 
{¶10} The panel hearing was continued pending the board’s decision on 
applicant’s request to withdraw her application.  On February 14, 2003, the board 
denied the request for withdrawal.  The next month, the panel learned that 
applicant had been disbarred in South Carolina on March 24, 2003, for having 
falsified her law school transcripts and provided false testimony under oath.  
According to the South Carolina Supreme Court, applicant had changed the Cs 
that she had received in 12 courses to As or Bs and changed her grade point 
average from 2.96 to 3.505.  In re Aboyade (2003), 353 S.C. 488, 578 S.E.2d 727.  
The court found that applicant had then submitted copies of the falsified transcript 
to law firms, which relied on the transcripts in deciding to offer her employment.  
The court further found that applicant had submitted a false affidavit in response 
to inquiries of South Carolina’s Disciplinary Counsel and testified falsely under 
oath during that disciplinary process. 
{¶11} After denial of the request to withdraw her application, applicant 
had no further contact with the panel or the Office of Bar Admissions.  She also 
did not appear at the July 11, 2003 panel hearing. 
January Term, 2004 
5 
{¶12} The panel found that applicant had failed to sustain her burden of 
proving by clear and convincing evidence that she has the character, fitness, and 
moral qualifications to practice law in Ohio.  Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(1).  Finding the 
facts as stated above, the panel determined that applicant had “failed to provide 
complete and accurate information concerning her past,” “made false statements, 
including omissions,” “engaged in acts involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation,” and “been subject to disciplinary action by a professional 
disciplinary agency of another jurisdiction, i.e., disbarment by the Supreme Court 
of South Carolina.” Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3)(g), (h), (i), and (o).  As further 
evidence of her failure to provide required information, the panel observed that 
applicant had failed to update her application to take the Ohio bar, as required by 
Gov.Bar R. I(3)(F), and report her employment with Jones Day on her 
supplemental character and fitness application. 
{¶13} The panel recommended that applicant’s candidacy for admission 
to the Ohio bar be denied and that she be forever barred from admission to the 
practice of law in this state.  The panel concluded: 
{¶14} “[Applicant] has been dishonest with her transcript, her employers 
* * *, and the Supreme Court of South Carolina.  Honesty is one of the basic and 
most important characteristics needed by a lawyer.  [Applicant] has repeatedly 
demonstrated she completely lacks any shred of honesty.  There is nothing * * * 
to show she has made any effort to change or to commence being truthful.” 
{¶15} The board adopted the panel’s report, including the findings of fact 
and recommendation to permanently deny applicant’s candidacy for admission to 
the Ohio bar. 
{¶16} Upon review, we agree that applicant has failed to prove her 
qualifications as required.  An applicant whose honesty and integrity are 
intrinsically suspect cannot be admitted to the Ohio bar.  In re Application of 
Cvammen, 102 Ohio St.3d 13, 2004-Ohio-1584, 806 N.E.2d 498, ¶ 22.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
Accordingly, respondent is hereby permanently denied admission to the practice 
of law in Ohio. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Bloomfield & Kempf and David S. Bloomfield, for Columbus Bar 
Association. 
__________________