Case Title: In re Application of Keita

Citation: 1995-Ohio-33

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1995-11-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Application of Keita. 
[Cite as In re Application of Keita (1995), ____ Ohio St.3d _____.] 
Attorneys at law -- Application to register as candidate for admission to the 
practice of law -- Application denied when applicant fails to prove his 
character, fitness and moral qualifications to practice law -- Applicant 
forever precluded from reapplying for the privilege to practice law in 
Ohio. 
 
(No. 91-1266 -- Submitted July 12, 1995 -- Decided November 22, 1995.) 
 
ON REPORT of the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness of the 
Supreme Court, No. 51. 
 
Sundiata Keita applied to register as a candidate for admission to the 
practice of law in Ohio on October 23, 1989.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. I(10) (now 
Gov. Bar R. I[11]), two members of the Joint Admissions Committee of the 
Cleveland and Cuyahoga County Bar Associations (“Joint Admissions 
Committee”) interviewed Keita in November 1989.  At least one of the 
interviewers expressed reservations about Keita’s prior criminal record and 
recommended further review by the entire Joint Admissions Committee, in effect, 
disapproving Keita’s application.  See Gov.Bar R. I(11)(E).  Keita did not pursue 
 
2
available appeals, and the Joint Admissions Committee consequently 
recommended disapproval of Keita’s application in February 1990. 
 
Keita subsequently applied to take the Ohio Bar Examination, filed a 
supplemental character questionnaire, and apparently requested a hearing before 
the Appeals Subcommittee of the Joint Admissions Committee (“Appeals 
Subcommittee”).  The Appeals Subcommittee recommended approval of Keita’s 
application; however, two of the nine participating committee members voted for 
disapproval and, under committee rules,  a third vote to disapprove would have 
required the Appeals Subcommittee to recommend disapproval.   
 
On August 2, 1990, the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness 
of the Supreme Court (“board”) appointed a panel sua sponte, pursuant to Gov. 
Bar R. I(9)(B)(e) (now Gov. Bar R. I[10][B][e]), to investigate Keita’s 
qualifications for admission to the Ohio Bar.  The appointed panel heard the 
matter on November 27, 1990 and initially recommended that Keita be permitted 
to take the bar examination.  However, upon further deliberation and review of the 
record, the entire board, including the panel members, unanimously recommended 
disapproval of Keita’s application and that he not be permitted to reapply.  As the 
 
3
basis for its determination that Keita did not possess the character and fitness 
necessary to practice law in Ohio, the board cited Keita’s 1969 court-martial while 
serving in the United States Navy; his diagnosis as having a “passive-aggressive 
personality” disorder by Navy medical personnel and his subsequent 
psychological treatment; his criminal record as a civilian, which included a 1972 
conviction for armed robbery and a seven-year prison term; his admission to 
having committed at least two other crimes in the course of the armed robbery -- 
rape and sodomy -- for which he was not convicted; his more recent pursuit of 
dubious civil claims; and his 1990 physical altercation with a student while 
employed as a teacher for Cleveland Public Schools. 
 
The board submitted its report and recommendation to this court for review 
on June 24, 1991.  Due to unresolved issues concerning the condition of his 
psychological welfare, Keita was evaluated by a psychiatrist pursuant to court 
order.  The resulting medical report raised additional concerns, most of which 
pertained to Keita’s credibility and judgment.  On the board’s motion, the matter 
was remanded, and a second hearing was conducted before an appointed panel on 
May 4, 1993. 
 
4
 
The second panel found, among other things, that (1) Keita had not been 
honest and forthright with the psychiatrist who evaluated him, (2) Keita had not 
been honest and forthright with either the first or the second panel appointed to 
review his qualifications, and (3) Keita had engaged in litigious and impulsive 
conduct over a period of years that reflected adversely on his ability to exercise 
mature judgment. On February 17, 1995, the board unanimously agreed with the 
second panel’s assessment and reaffirmed its prior recommendation that Keita’s 
application be denied and that, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. I(12)(E), he not be 
permitted to reapply. 
______________ 
 
Sammon & Bolmeyer Co.,L.P.A.  and Frank G. Bolmeyer, for applicant. 
 
Chester, Willcox & Saxbe, John J. Chester and Donald C. Brey, Special 
Investigator, for the board. 
______________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Applicants for admission to the Ohio Bar must establish by 
clear and convincing evidence that their prior conduct justifies the trust of clients, 
adversaries, courts and others with respect to the professional duties owed to them.  
 
5
An applicant’s commission or conviction of a crime, failure to provide complete 
and accurate information concerning his or her past, and abuse of the legal process 
are factors that must be considered in assessing the sufficiency of the applicant’s 
character, fitness, and moral qualifications for bar admission.  A significant 
deficiency in the honesty, trustworthiness, diligence or reliability of an applicant is 
a basis for our disapproval of the applicant.  Gov. Bar R. I(11)(D)(3) and (4). 
 
Moreover, a prior felony conviction is not, per se, sufficient to show that an 
applicant presently lacks the moral character required to practice law.  In re 
Application of Davis (1974), 38 Ohio St.2d 273, 275, 67 O.O.2d 344, 345, 313 
N.E.2d 363, 364-365.  “However, where such [conviction] appears in the 
background of an applicant for admission to the bar, his burden of establishing his 
present good moral character takes on the added weight of proving his full and 
complete rehabilitation subsequent to the conviction.”  Rehabilitation must also be 
proved by clear and convincing evidence.  Id. 
 
We agree with the board that Sundiata Keita cannot establish the character, 
fitness and moral qualifications necessary to practice law in this state.  The board 
was legitimately reluctant to initially recommend approval of Keita’s application 
 
6
in view of his significant criminal record; his apparent history of serious 
psychological problems; his repeated filing, with little or no justification, of 
discrimination charges or other claims; and his suspicious explanation of his 
reaction to the alleged attack of a female student.  Upon remand, the psychiatrist 
appointed to evaluate Keita assured the board that Keita did not suffer from any 
psychiatric disorder.  Even so, the board was still legitimately concerned that (1) 
Keita had not disclosed to the appointed psychiatrist the most sordid details of the 
armed robbery he committed in 1972; (2) Keita had been reluctant to accept 
unmitigated responsibility for his crime during at least one interview with the 
psychiatrist, even suggesting that armed robbery could be an appropriate response 
to ill treatment by another; (3) Keita had failed to reveal at the first panel hearing, 
but had confessed to the psychiatrist, his use of a belt to strike the female student 
who had allegedly attacked him; and (4) Keita had refused to responsibly 
acknowledge the basis for disciplinary measures he had received as a teacher, 
repeatedly rationalizing his conduct or raising procedural defenses to the 
imposition of discipline. 
 
In evaluating Keita’s psychological condition, the appointed psychiatrist 
confirmed that Keita had “engaged in passive-aggressive, antisocial, litigious, and 
 
7
impulsively aggressive behavior over the years.”  Moreover, Keita has been 
“unwilling to accept responsibility for questionable past behaviors and lapses in 
judgment.”  This behavior is manifested by the record, and we consider such 
enduring conduct ample justification for the board’s findings and 
recommendation.  Therefore, we adopt the board’s report and deny Sundiata 
Keita’s applications for admission to the Ohio Bar and to take the Ohio Bar 
Examination.  Furthermore, we order that Keita be forever precluded from 
reapplying for the privilege to practice law in this state. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and 
COOK, JJ., CONCUR.