Case Title: In re Application of Daubenmire

Citation: 2013-Ohio-4977

Docket Number: 2013-0458

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2013-11-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as In 
re Application of Daubenmire, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-4977.] 
 
 
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. 2013-OHIO-4977 
IN RE APPLICATION OF DAUBENMIRE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as In re Application of Daubenmire,  
Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-4977.] 
Attorneys—Character and fitness—Applicant convicted of pandering obscenity 
involving a minor—Applicant may apply to take the July 2018 bar 
examination. 
(No. 2013-0458—Submitted May 8, 2013—Decided November 14, 2013.) 
ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness  
of the Supreme Court, No. 539. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Zachary Charles Daubenmire of Thornville, Ohio, is a 2011 
graduate of Case Western Reserve University School of Law and has applied as a 
candidate for admission to the Ohio bar.  The Licking County Bar Association 
recommended approval of his application, with qualifications.  Because 
Daubenmire had been convicted of a felony—pandering obscenity involving a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
minor—in 2007, the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness conducted 
an investigation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(5)(a). 
{¶ 2} Following a hearing, in which a panel of the board heard testimony 
from Daubenmire and four additional witnesses and received documentary 
evidence, the panel recommended that Daubenmire’s character, fitness, and moral 
qualifications be disapproved but that he be permitted to reapply as a candidate 
for the July 2014 bar exam.  The board adopted the panel’s report in its entirety. 
{¶ 3} While we adopt the board’s findings of fact and disapprove 
Daubenmire’s pending application, we have grave concerns about permitting an 
applicant to take the bar exam and, perhaps, commence the practice of law while 
he is legally obligated to register as sex offender—an obligation that Daubenmire 
will have until February 27, 2017.  Therefore, we disapprove Daubenmire’s 
pending application and will permit him to reapply as a candidate for the July 
2018 bar exam. 
Statement of Facts 
{¶ 4} The primary focus of the December 13, 2012 panel hearing was 
Daubenmire’s conviction for the second-degree felony of pandering obscenity 
involving a minor in violation of R.C. 2907.321(A)(1) and/or (A)(6). 
{¶ 5} The panel found that on the surface, Daubenmire was an unlikely 
candidate to engage in the conduct that led to his arrest and conviction.  He was 
raised in a strict religious household and was a good student and star athlete.  His 
father, a minister, was also his high school football coach.  Daubenmire testified 
that he had had no disciplinary problems in school but admitted that he began 
looking at Internet pornography while he was still in high school.  In 2001, during 
his freshman year at Kenyon College, he was diagnosed with neurotic depression, 
triggered at least in part by separation anxiety, and began taking an 
antidepressant.  He also began to download pornographic pictures and videos of 
children under the age of 18. 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
{¶ 6} Daubenmire testified that he was interested in viewing only 
teenage girls and admitted that he knew that the images he downloaded depicted 
girls under the age of 18, but he had convinced himself that watching their sexual 
activity online was preferable to actually engaging in such activities.  He was 
adamant that he had had no interest in viewing young, undeveloped children, and 
he stated that he deleted pictures or videos that depicted those subjects. 
{¶ 7} Daubenmire’s illicit activity was discovered in 2006, when the 
family computer malfunctioned and his father sent it to a repair shop to have data 
transferred to a new computer.  The computer technician discovered child 
pornography on the computer and reported it to the authorities.  The titles of the 
files found on the computer clearly identify the participants as being under the age 
of 18, and there is no dispute that some of the videos depicted sexual activity 
involving children.  Daubenmire does not dispute that when he was caught, he 
had been viewing illegal child pornography for approximately five years.  He 
cooperated with the criminal investigation, and on the advice of counsel, he 
entered a no-contest plea.  He was sentenced to five years of community control 
and ordered to register as a sexually oriented offender, to perform 100 hours of 
community service, to participate in sexual-offender counseling, and to abstain 
from alcohol. 
{¶ 8} The panel found that Daubenmire had complied with all the 
conditions of his criminal sentence.  In addition to a required sexual-offender 
counseling program, he voluntarily participated in individual therapy for 
approximately five years, stopping only when his therapist expressed the opinion 
that he no longer needed counseling for any sexual issues.  His efforts were 
rewarded in 2009, when the sentencing court granted his motion for early release 
from his community-control sanction. 
{¶ 9} Recognizing that he would be barred from teaching and 
coaching—his chosen profession before his conviction—Daubenmire eventually 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
accepted a job as an administrative assistant, working for an attorney who was a 
friend of his father.  That job and his own experience with the legal system 
inspired him to apply to law school.  He fully disclosed his conviction and was 
admitted to Case Western Reserve University School of Law in 2008.  With the 
assistance of the law-school dean, he sought treatment from Candace Risen, 
L.I.S.W.-S, a recognized expert in sexual problems and deviances, and 
participated in therapy with her until May 2011. 
{¶ 10} Risen testified that the focus of Daubenmire’s therapy was to 
identify and help him understand what led him to view child pornography.  Based 
on her treatment, she believed that there were two primary issues.  First, she 
believed that his repressed upbringing caused him to seek sexual experience 
vicariously, rather than engaging in age-appropriate sexual conduct.  She also 
found that he had developed anger toward, and resentment of, his father, who had 
set high standards for him, and who would have been subject to embarrassment if 
he failed to live up to those expectations.  Risen expressed her professional 
opinion that Daubenmire (1) does not suffer from a sexual or deviance disorder, 
(2) is very unlikely to engage in the conduct that led to his conviction in the 
future, (3) does not require additional therapy for sexual issues, and (4) is fit to 
engage in the practice of law.  She noted that Daubenmire suffers from an anxiety 
disorder that is managed with medication and is unrelated to his misconduct.  The 
panel found Risen’s testimony to be very credible. 
{¶ 11} Two witnesses who had known Daubenmire since he was a child 
testified that he was a moral, honest, and hardworking person who has tried to 
overcome his mistakes and who is fit to become a lawyer.  Attorney Roger 
Weaver, who had employed Daubenmire following his conviction and during his 
law-school breaks, and who still employed him as a paralegal at the time of the 
hearing, testified that he understood the gravity of Daubenmire’s conduct and that 
he did not make the decision to employ him lightly.  Nonetheless, he testified that 
January Term, 2013 
5 
 
he admired Daubenmire’s efforts to rehabilitate himself at one of the lowest times 
in his life and strongly believed that he is now a moral, upright, and trustworthy 
person who is fit to practice law.  He stated that he permitted Daubenmire to 
access his computer system, entrusted him with law-firm funds, and allowed him 
to interact with clients.  Furthermore, he testified that he would not hesitate to 
have Daubenmire join his law practice if he were admitted to the bar. 
Disposition 
{¶ 12} “ ‘One of the fundamental tenets of the professional responsibility 
of a lawyer is that he should maintain a degree of personal and professional 
integrity that meets the highest standard.  The integrity of the profession can be 
maintained only if the conduct of the individual attorney is above reproach.  He 
should refrain from any illegal conduct.  Anything short of this lessens public 
confidence in the legal profession—because obedience to the law exemplifies 
respect for the law.’ ” Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Hennekes, 110 Ohio St.3d 108, 
2006-Ohio-3669, 850 N.E.2d 1201, ¶ 13, quoting Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Stein, 29 
Ohio St.2d 77, 81, 278 N.E.2d 670 (1972). 
{¶ 13} To that end, we require an applicant to the Ohio bar to 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).  Applicants must establish that they have the 
ability to exercise good judgment and conduct themselves with a high degree of 
honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness in their professional affairs; to conduct 
themselves in accordance with the law and the Rules of Professional Conduct; to 
avoid acts that exhibit disregard for the health, safety, and welfare of others; and 
to conduct themselves professionally and in a manner that engenders respect for 
the law and the profession.  Definitions of Essential Eligibility Requirements for 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
the Practice of Law, Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ 
AttySvcs/admissions/application/03req/default.asp (accessed Sept. 24, 2013). 
{¶ 14} When an applicant has been convicted of a felony, we consider a 
number of additional factors, including (1) the amount of time that has passed 
since the conviction, (2) whether the applicant has been released from parole, 
probation, community control, postrelease control, or prison, (3) whether the 
applicant’s rights and privileges have been restored, (4) whether the applicant is 
disqualified by law from holding an office of public trust, and (5) how approval of 
the applicant would impact the public’s perception of, or confidence in, the legal 
profession.  Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(5)(a)(i) through (iv).  The rule also specifies a 
number of factors that should be considered in assessing the weight and 
significance of the applicant’s prior conduct, including the age of the applicant at 
the time of the conduct, the recency of the conduct, the seriousness of the 
conduct, any evidence of rehabilitation, and the candor of the applicant.  See 
Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(4)(a) through (j). 
{¶ 15} The board found that Daubenmire had engaged in serious criminal 
behavior by downloading child pornography for about five years and that but for 
the fortuitous need for a computer repair, he would have continued this conduct.  
He committed this offense as an adult, and despite his professed interest in videos 
depicting teenage girls, some of the files found on his computer involved young 
children. 
{¶ 16} On the other hand, the board credited Daubenmire for his efforts to 
rehabilitate himself, noting that he had fulfilled all the conditions imposed as part 
of his criminal sentence, obtained an early release from his community-control 
sanction, engaged in individual therapy in addition to the court-ordered group 
therapy, and continued treatment until his therapist advised him that it was no 
longer necessary.  He applied for, was admitted to, and successfully completed 
law school, and he offered a number of character references. 
January Term, 2013 
7 
 
{¶ 17} The board also considered Daubenmire’s obligation to register as a 
sexually oriented offender and the negative perception of the legal profession that 
might arise if an individual held the dual status of registered sex offender and 
licensed attorney.  However, the board declined to consider Daubenmire’s status 
as a registered sex offender as the determinative factor in its calculus and 
recommended that he be permitted to reapply as a candidate for the July 2014 bar 
exam—an exam that will occur five years after Daubenmire’s release from 
community control, three years after his completion of mental health counseling, 
and more than halfway through his ten-year obligation to register as a sex 
offender. 
{¶ 18} We have never before considered whether an applicant can 
satisfactorily demonstrate that he possesses the requisite character, fitness, and 
moral qualifications to take the Ohio bar exam while he is under a continuing duty 
to register as a sexually oriented offender. 
{¶ 19} Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(5)(a)(i) prohibits the Board of Commissioners 
on Character and Fitness from approving the character, fitness, and moral 
qualifications of a candidate who has been convicted of a felony before the 
candidate is released from parole, probation, community control, postrelease 
control, or prison.  That rule, however, does not mandate the disapproval of 
applicants who remain obligated to register as sex offenders during the pendency 
of their applications.  Nonetheless, we are troubled by the nature of Daubenmire’s  
conduct—which involved not only the downloading of pornographic photo and 
video images of minors, including young children, as found by the board, but also 
the online trading or sharing of those images with others—as well as the five-year 
duration of that conduct.  We are also concerned that even as a college graduate, 
Daubenmire failed to appreciate the gravity of his conduct—or the fact that the 
children depicted in those illegal materials were, in fact, victims of his conduct—
until after he got caught.  And we cannot overlook the very real possibility that 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
admitting a presently registered sex offender to the practice of law will adversely 
affect the public’s perception of the profession as a whole.  Thus, while the rules 
do not mandate that an applicant’s character, fitness, and moral qualifications be 
disapproved before the termination of the applicant’s duty to register as a sex 
offender, we conclude that it is in the best interest of the public and the profession 
that we do so here. 
{¶ 20} Accordingly, we disapprove Daubenmire’s pending application, 
but we will  permit him to reapply as a candidate for the July 2018 bar 
examination by submitting a new application to register as a candidate for 
admission to the bar and an application to take the bar examination.  At that time, 
he shall submit to a full character and fitness investigation. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, and FRENCH, 
JJ., concur. 
PFEIFER and O’NEILL, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part and would 
allow the applicant to reapply for the July 2014 bar examination as recommended 
by the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness. 
____________________ 
Richard D. Brown Law Office, L.L.C, and Richard Donald Brown, for 
applicant. 
Morrow, Gordon & Byrd, Ltd., and Carolyn Jean Carnes, for the Licking 
County Bar Association. 
________________________