Case Title: In re Application of Winwood

Citation: 2018-Ohio-12

Docket Number: 2017-1137

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2018-01-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as In 
re Application of Washington, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-12.] 
 
 
 
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. 2018-OHIO-12 
IN RE APPLICATION OF WASHINGTON. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as In re Application of Washington, Slip Opinion No.  
2018-Ohio-12.] 
Attorneys—Character and fitness—Inaccurate recording of work hours during 
internship—Pending application to register as candidate for admission to 
practice of law disapproved—Reapplication permitted. 
(No. 2017-1137—Submitted October 17, 2017—Decided January 3, 2018.) 
ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and 
Fitness of the Supreme Court, No. 659. 
___________________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Applicant, Brianna Lynn Washington, of Columbus, Ohio, applied to 
register as a candidate for admission to the practice of law in Ohio in November 
2015.  At the time, she was a student at Capital University Law School. 
{¶ 2} A two-member admissions committee interviewed Washington, and 
in March 2016, it issued a preliminary report recommending that her character and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
fitness be approved.  But when the Board of Commissioners on Character and 
Fitness reviewed the application, it noted that Washington had been dismissed from 
an internship with the Ohio Department of Administrative Services (“DAS”) due 
to discrepancies on her timesheets.  Citing concerns about Washington’s honesty 
and integrity, the board invoked its sua sponte investigatory authority under 
Gov.Bar R. I(10)(B)(2)(e). 
{¶ 3} On December 19, 2016, a panel of the board conducted a hearing.  The 
panel found that Washington had engaged in two isolated incidents of dishonesty 
involving the inaccurate recording of work hours during her DAS internship but 
recommended that she be permitted to sit for the Ohio bar examination.  On 
February 6, 2016, however, the board remanded the matter to the panel for further 
investigation. 
{¶ 4} On May 11, 2017, the panel conducted a second hearing, during which 
it heard testimony from the human-resources administrator at DAS and two DAS 
employees who supervised Washington during her internship.  According to their 
testimony, on four occasions, Washington’s supervisors observed her arriving or 
leaving for the day at a time different from the time recorded on her timesheet.  
Although Washington did not testify at the second hearing, she had definitively 
testified during the first panel hearing that the inaccurate recordkeeping occurred 
on two occasions. 
{¶ 5} On June 5, 2017, the panel issued a supplemental report and 
recommendation.  The panel described the evidence adduced at the second hearing 
and noted the inconsistency between the DAS employees’ testimony and 
Washington’s testimony at the first hearing.  In addition, the panel emphasized 
Washington’s nonresponsiveness after the first hearing.  The panel had attempted 
to contact Washington five times between the first and second hearing—via 
certified mail, e-mail, and voicemail—but she never responded, and she did not 
appear at the second hearing.  Citing this complete failure to communicate or to 
January Term, 2018 
 
3
cooperate in the proceedings after the first hearing, the panel recommended that we 
disapprove Washington’s pending application but permit her to reapply in the 
future. 
{¶ 6} The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and recommendation.  
There are no objections to the board’s report or recommendation. 
{¶ 7} We have reviewed the board’s report and the record, and we agree 
that Washington has not yet demonstrated the requisite character, fitness, and moral 
qualifications under Gov.Bar R. I(11) for admission to the practice of law.  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. 
{¶ 8} By inaccurately reporting time worked on her timesheets at DAS, 
Washington misrepresented to her employer, the state of Ohio, the number of hours 
she had worked and sought to be compensated for hours she had not worked.  See 
Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3)(h) and (i) (false statements and acts involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation may be grounds for denying an application).  
And, more importantly, when Washington stopped responding to communications 
from the board after her first hearing and failed to even appear at her second 
hearing, she demonstrated a lack of cooperation in the character-and-fitness 
investigation.  Washington’s failure to appear is itself sufficient grounds for 
disproving her application.  See Gov.Bar R. I(12)(C)(6) (failure to fully cooperate 
in the character-and-fitness investigation may be grounds for a recommendation of 
disapproval); In re Application of Myers, 147 Ohio St.3d 32, 2016-Ohio-2812, 59 
N.E.3d 1266 (finding that applicant failed to demonstrate the requisite character, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to the bar when, after continuing his 
hearing twice, the applicant failed to respond to any of the panel’s repeated efforts 
to contact him to reschedule). 
{¶ 9} Given these facts, we agree with the board that Washington has failed 
to carry her burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that she possesses 
the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to the bar at 
this time.  However, consistently with the board’s recommendation, we will permit 
Washington to file a new application to register as a candidate for admission to the 
practice of law and to apply to take the July 2018 bar exam.  Upon reapplication, 
Washington will be required to undergo a complete character-and-fitness 
investigation, including an investigation and report by the National Conference of 
Bar Examiners, and demonstrate that she possesses the requisite character, fitness, 
and moral qualifications for admission to the practice of law in Ohio. 
Judgment accordingly. 
KENNEDY, FRENCH, O’NEILL, FISCHER, and DEWINE, JJ., concur. 
O’DONNELL, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by O’CONNOR, C.J. 
_________________ 
O’DONNELL, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 10} Respectfully, I dissent. 
{¶ 11} I would permit this applicant to apply for the July 2019 bar exam. 
O’Connor, C.J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 
_________________ 
Brianna Lynn Washington, pro se. 
William L. Loveland, for the Columbus Bar Association. 
_________________