Case Title: In re Application of Brumbaugh

Citation: 2021-Ohio-780

Docket Number: 2020-1079

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2021-03-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as In 
re Application of Brumbaugh, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-780.] 
 
 
 
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. 2021-OHIO-780 
IN RE APPLICATION OF BRUMBAUGH. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as In re Application of Brumbaugh, Slip Opinion No.  
2021-Ohio-780.] 
Attorneys—Character and fitness—Application for admission to practice of law 
without examination—Omissions and inconsistencies in application 
materials and inaccurate statements during application process—Pending 
application disapproved but applicant permitted to reapply in one year. 
(No. 2020-1079—Submitted January 27, 2021—Decided March 17, 2021.) 
ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and 
Fitness of the Supreme Court, No. 754. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Applicant, Bridgett Gretchen Brumbaugh, is licensed to practice law 
in Texas and has filed an application for admission to the practice of law in Ohio 
without examination.  The Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness found 
a number of inaccuracies and inconsistencies in her application materials and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
recommends that we disapprove her application but permit her to reapply in one 
year.  Upon our review of the record, we adopt the board’s findings and disapprove 
Brumbaugh’s application. 
Background 
{¶ 2} In May 2004, Brumbaugh graduated from St. Mary’s University 
School of Law in San Antonio, Texas, and in November 2008, she was admitted to 
the practice of law in Texas.  In May 2018, she applied for admission to the Ohio 
bar without examination pursuant to Gov.Bar R. I(9).1  In her application, she 
indicated that in August 2016, she temporarily moved in with her parents in Warren, 
Ohio, but that in February 2018, she moved back to Texas and began employment 
as an attorney for a law-enforcement association. 
{¶ 3} The National Conference of Bar Examiners (“NCBE”) investigated 
Brumbaugh’s character and fitness and issued a report.  In addition, two members 
of the Akron Bar Association’s admissions committee interviewed her.  In June 
2019, the committee recommended that her application be disapproved.  
Brumbaugh filed an appeal, and pursuant to Gov.Bar R. I(12)(C), the matter 
proceeded to a hearing before a three-member panel of the board. 
{¶ 4} After the January 2020 hearing, the panel requested further 
information from Brumbaugh’s prior employers and obtained copies of court filings 
in Texas and Ohio cases involving Brumbaugh.  The panel instructed Brumbaugh 
to explain why she had not disclosed three of those cases in her application and to 
supplement her application with additional information and documents.  
Brumbaugh responded to some—but not all—of the panel’s supplemental 
questions and requests. 
                                                          
 
1.  On June 1, 2020, we adopted amendments to Gov.Bar R. I, but because the panel heard 
Brumbaugh’s appeal prior to the effective date of those amendments, all references to Gov.Bar R. I 
refer to the prior version of the rule. 
January Term, 2021 
 
3
{¶ 5} The panel later issued a report finding that Brumbaugh had failed to 
prove her current character, fitness, and moral qualifications and therefore 
recommended that her application be disapproved but that she be permitted to 
reapply in one year.  The board adopted the panel’s report in its entirety, and 
Brumbaugh has not objected to the board’s report and recommendation. 
The board’s findings and recommendation 
{¶ 6} The board found the following eight problems with Brumbaugh’s 
application materials. 
{¶ 7} First, the board concluded that she had failed to accurately and fully 
explain in her application that when she lived in Ohio, she had provided legal 
services to a Texas resident.  In the affidavit required by Gov.Bar R. I(9)(C)(1), 
Brumbaugh would not agree to a statement attesting that she had not performed 
legal services in Ohio.  Instead, she inserted “NA” under the statement.  But in a 
different portion of her application and at her admissions hearing, she 
acknowledged that while in Ohio, she had completed legal work for a Texas client.  
The board noted that rather than inserting “NA” in the affidavit, Brumbaugh could 
have easily included a statement fully disclosing the legal services she had 
performed while physically located in Ohio.  Brumbaugh, however, failed to do so.  
She also never revised or corrected the affidavit in her application. 
{¶ 8} Second, the board found that Brumbaugh had failed to provide the 
level of cooperation necessary in a character-and-fitness investigation.  For 
example, after the hearing, the panel requested that Brumbaugh submit a copy of 
her 2017 federal, state, and local tax returns in an attempt to learn more about the 
legal services she performed while living in Ohio.  But Brumbaugh never produced 
those documents or explained why she had refused to do so. 
{¶ 9} In addition, the panel discovered that Brumbaugh was a party to a 
dissolution proceeding in Trumbull County in 2000 and asked her to explain why 
she had failed to disclose that action in her application.  The application required 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
her to identify “any” legal proceeding in which she had been named as a party, such 
as “[f]amily law matters (including continuing orders for child support).”  
Brumbaugh initially objected to the panel’s request, describing it as a “hunt for 
information unrelated to requirements for admission without examination.”  But 
according to the panel’s report, she later explained that when she completed her 
application, she did not believe that she was required to disclose an uncontested 
divorce from many years ago that did not involve child-support issues.  The board 
concluded that Brumbaugh’s “omission of such a proceeding on a[n] application, 
coupled with an unconvincing explanation for that nondisclosure, [was] 
significant.” 
{¶ 10} Third, the board found that Brumbaugh was unable to explain 
inconsistencies in her application about her prior residences.  For example, she 
reported that she lived at one address from October 2014 to February 2015 and at a 
different address from February 2014 and July 2016.  At her admissions hearing, 
she testified that she had never resided at two addresses at the same time and that 
“if the numbers got transposed and some dates were off, it wasn’t intentional.”  But 
given the other inaccuracies with the addresses provided in her application, the 
board did not find Brumbaugh’s explanation credible. 
{¶ 11} Fourth, the board was troubled by Brumbaugh’s inconsistent 
statements about her reasons for leaving employment with the Office of Disability 
Adjudication and Review (“ODAR”), a branch of the Social Security 
Administration.  In her application, she reported that she was “let go during 
probation period.”  But in response to the NCBE’s investigation, ODAR reported 
that Brumbaugh had not properly performed the functions of her position and that 
she had chosen to resign prior to the effective date of her termination.  At her 
admissions hearing, Brumbaugh acknowledged that she had resigned from ODAR 
but denied that her resignation was related to the quality of her work.  She resigned, 
she claimed, because she disagreed with a decision to “write [her] up” for being 
January Term, 2021 
 
5
late to work.  The board found Brumbaugh’s explanation “neither reliable nor 
complete.” 
{¶ 12} Fifth, the board had similar lingering questions about Brumbaugh’s 
reasons for ending her employment with a Texas law firm.  In her application, she 
reported that her employment with the firm ended by “mutual agreement.”  But in 
response to the NCBE investigation, her former supervisor stated that she was 
terminated.  At her admissions hearing, Brumbaugh maintained that she and the 
law firm had mutually agreed to end the employment relationship.  But Brumbaugh 
failed to submit any posthearing documentation supporting her version of events, 
and the board was unwilling to simply accept her explanation at face value and 
disregard the law firm’s submission to the NCBE. 
{¶ 13} Sixth, the board found that Brumbaugh had neglected a financial 
obligation.  In her application, she admitted that she had defaulted on a debt, which 
she described at her admissions hearing as “junk debt” and “old debt.”  She further 
testified that she had “moved forward on that” and was current on her obligations.  
But after the hearing, the panel obtained filings from a Texas case—which 
Brumbaugh had failed to disclose in her application—indicating that in 2013, a 
creditor obtained a judgment lien against her for $7,811.23, plus attorney fees of 
$1,500, and that the debt was assigned to a new creditor in 2017.  The board 
concluded: “The existence of a multi-thousand dollar judgment against an applicant 
who appears to be making no effort to attend to the debt cannot be countenanced.” 
{¶ 14} Seventh, the bound found numerous inconsistencies between the 
litigation history Brumbaugh disclosed in her application and public records 
obtained by the panel.  For example, the panel discovered a Texas case in which 
Brumbaugh was a named party, although she had failed to disclose the action in her 
application.  When the panel confronted Brumbaugh about the matter in its 
supplemental questions, she stated that she was not a party in the case and that her 
former law firm had merely represented the defendant in the matter.  However, the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
case file clearly showed that Brumbaugh was a named party, and the board credited 
the public record over Brumbaugh’s explanation. 
{¶ 15} In addition, although Brumbaugh disclosed in her application that 
she had filed a wrongful-termination and discrimination action against another 
former employer, she ultimately declined to pursue the lawsuit.  The board found 
that her “explanation for her decision to file, and then seemingly abandon, the 
lawsuit * * * [left] as many questions as it does answers.” 
{¶ 16} Eighth, Brumbaugh noted in her application that while in Ohio, she 
“outsourced paralegal services.”  At her admissions hearing, she clarified that she 
had actually performed those paralegal services for an Ohio attorney.  The panel 
thereafter requested information from the attorney.  In one response, he stated that 
Brumbaugh was professional and courteous, but in a follow-up letter, he noted that 
he had lacked trust in her work ethic and work product.  The board claims that in 
response to the attorney’s submissions, Brumbaugh advised the panel that the 
attorney’s inconsistent descriptions of her may be due to his “drinking/drug 
problem.”  The board expressed concern about the “cavalier manner” in which 
Brumbaugh made a serious allegation of substance abuse about a member of the 
Ohio bar. 
{¶ 17} Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3) provides a nonexhaustive list of factors that 
the board considers in assessing an applicant’s character and fitness for admission 
to the bar.  The board had “continuing concerns” regarding the following factors: 
(1) commission of an act constituting the unauthorized practice of law,2 (2) failure 
to provide complete and accurate information concerning the applicant’s past, (3) 
false statements, including omissions, (4) acts involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, 
                                                          
 
2.  The board did not conclude that Brumbaugh had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.  
Rather, the board found that Brumbaugh had failed to assist the panel in its attempt to learn more 
about “the nature, scope, and extent of her practice of law activities while she was residing in Ohio.” 
January Term, 2021 
 
7
or misrepresentation, (5) abuse of legal process, and (6) neglect of financial 
responsibilities.  See Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3)(c) and (g) through (k). 
{¶ 18} Based on the foregoing, the board recommends that we disapprove 
Brumbaugh’s application but permit her to reapply for admission without 
examination in one year.  The board further recommends that if she reapplies, she 
be required to submit a new NCBE questionnaire fully responding to all questions, 
provide complete explanations for all omissions and inaccuracies in her 2018 
application—including, but not limited to, documentation demonstrating the extent 
to which she provided legal services to any client while physically located in 
Ohio—and submit to a new interview by the admissions committee of the Akron 
Bar Association or any other bar association’s admissions committee designated by 
the Office of Bar Admissions. 
Disposition 
{¶ 19} 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).  “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.”  Gov.Bar. R. I(11)(D)(3). 
{¶ 20} We have previously explained that “[e]ven one incomplete answer 
can lead to the disapproval of an admission application if the applicant does not 
fully and honestly explain when the opportunity arises,” In re Application of Bagne, 
102 Ohio St.3d 182, 2004-Ohio-2070, 808 N.E.2d 372, ¶ 23, and that “avoid[ing] 
or shad[ing] the truth during the character and fitness proceedings” constitutes a 
false statement or an omission, In re Application of Howard, 111 Ohio St.3d 220, 
2006-Ohio-5486, 855 N.E.2d 865, ¶ 9. 
{¶ 21} In addition, “[t]he importance of an applicant’s cooperation in the 
hearing process cannot be overstated.”  In re Application of Harris, 101 Ohio St.3d 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
268, 2004-Ohio-721, 804 N.E.2d 429, ¶ 13.  For example, in Harris, we 
disapproved the application of an applicant who, among other things, had 
repeatedly failed to produce financial information requested by the panel during the 
character-and-fitness investigation.  See also In re Application of Mefford, 104 Ohio 
St.3d 324, 2004-Ohio-6591, 819 N.E.2d 684, ¶ 11 (“seeming lack of concern on 
the applicant’s part in the face of repeated requests [to furnish financial 
information] from the panel fully justifies the panel’s and the board’s 
recommendation that the applicant not be permitted to take the bar examination at 
this time”). 
{¶ 22} “And financial responsibility is critically important for lawyers.”  
Mefford at ¶ 12.  “ ‘We expect applicants for admission to the Ohio bar and bar 
members to scrupulously honor all financial commitments.’ ”  Id., quoting In re 
Application of Manayan, 102 Ohio St.3d 109, 2004-Ohio-1804, 807 N.E.2d 313, 
¶ 14. 
{¶ 23} In light of Brumbaugh’s omitting required information from her 
application, her inconsistent statements during the application process, and her 
failure to furnish requested documents and information to the panel, we agree with 
the board that she has failed to prove that she currently possesses the requisite 
character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to the practice of law in 
Ohio.  We therefore adopt the board’s findings of fact and disapprove Brumbaugh’s 
application.  Brumbaugh may reapply for admission without examination after one 
year from the date of the order issued in this matter.  If she reapplies, she shall file 
a new application and NCBE questionnaire fully and completely responding to all 
questions therein; provide a complete explanation for all omissions or inaccuracies 
in her 2018 application, including but not limited to, documentation showing the 
extent to which she provided legal services to any client while physically located 
in Ohio; and submit to a new character-and-fitness interview by any bar-association 
admissions committee designated by the Office of Bar Admissions. 
January Term, 2021 
 
9
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and FISCHER, DONNELLY, STEWART, and BRUNNER, JJ., 
concur. 
DEWINE, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion joined by 
KENNEDY, J. 
_________________ 
DEWINE, J., concurring in judgment only. 
{¶ 24} I concur in this court’s judgment adopting the recommendation of 
the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness that Bridgett Brumbaugh’s 
application for admission to the Ohio bar without examination be disapproved and 
that she be permitted to reapply in one year.  But I disagree with one aspect of the 
board’s rationale. 
{¶ 25} Some of the board’s findings relate to its attempt to investigate 
whether Brumbaugh engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by performing 
legal work for a Texas client under her Texas law license while she was physically 
present in Ohio.  For the reasons expressed in my separate opinion in In re 
Application of Jones, 156 Ohio St.3d 1, 2018-Ohio-4182, 123 N.E.3d 877, I do not 
think that a lawyer who practices the law of another jurisdiction in which she is 
licensed engages in the unauthorized practice of law simply because the lawyer is 
working remotely from Ohio.  Indeed, it is increasingly common for lawyers to 
work from any number of physical locations.  A Florida attorney might perform 
legal work while caring for family in Ohio.  A Kentucky attorney might work from 
his home in Cincinnati during a pandemic.  In my view, the state of Ohio has no 
legitimate interest in preventing an attorney from performing legal work within 
Ohio’s borders when that work does not in any way touch on Ohio courts or the 
Ohio public.  See id. at ¶ 44 (DeWine, J., concurring in judgment only).  It is past 
time for this court to change its rules to make clear that an out-of-state lawyer who 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
10 
happens to be working remotely in Ohio is not engaged in the unauthorized practice 
of law. 
{¶ 26} Nonetheless, other independent reasons identified by the board 
warrant disapproval of Brumbaugh’s application at this time.  As the majority notes, 
Brumbaugh’s application contained a number of omissions and inconsistencies, her 
responses to concerns raised by the board contradicted public records and 
information obtained from other people, and she failed to comply with the panel’s 
requests for additional documentation.  I therefore concur in the judgment of the 
court. 
 
KENNEDY, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 
_________________ 
Bridgett Gretchen Brumbaugh, pro se. 
Wayne M. Rice, Bar Counsel, and Martin H. Belsky, for the Akron Bar 
Association. 
_________________