Case Title: In re Application of Wiseman

Citation: 2013-Ohio-763

Docket Number: 2012-1633

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2013-03-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as In 
re Application of Wiseman, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-763.] 
 
 
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-763 
IN RE APPLICATION OF WISEMAN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as In re Application of Wiseman,  
Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-763.] 
Attorneys—Character and fitness—History of criminal conduct, lengthy pattern of 
traffic offenses, and violation of fiduciary duties as a trustee weigh against 
approval of application for admission to the bar—Application to register 
as a candidate for admission to the bar disapproved. 
(No. 2012-1633—Submitted January 9, 2013—Decided March 7, 2013.) 
ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and 
Fitness of the Supreme Court, No. 523. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Jay Michael Wiseman of Bowling Green, Ohio, is a 2010 graduate 
of the University of Toledo College of Law.  He has applied as a candidate for 
admission to the Ohio bar and to take the Ohio bar exam.  After conducting two 
separate hearings, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Character and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Fitness recommended that Wiseman’s character be disapproved based on findings 
that he had demonstrated a disturbing pattern of violating the laws of this state 
and other states, engaged in prohibited self-dealing while serving as the fiduciary 
of a trust, knowingly violated the rules of the university he attended, and engaged 
in a pattern of lies and half-truths throughout the admissions process.  The board 
adopted the panel’s findings and recommendation.  Having thoroughly reviewed 
the record, we adopt the board’s findings of fact, disapprove Wiseman’s pending 
applications, and forever bar him from seeking admission to the Ohio bar. 
The Underlying Improprieties 
{¶ 2} The admissions committee of the Columbus Bar Association first 
interviewed Wiseman on June 30, 2011, and recommended that his character and 
fitness be approved.  However, the board exercised its investigatory authority 
under Gov.Bar R. I(10)(B)(2)(e) and appointed a panel to hear the matter. 
{¶ 3} At the first hearing, the panel addressed three primary areas of 
concern:  (1) Wiseman’s past criminal conduct (including incidents of underage 
possession of alcohol, destruction of property, public intoxication, and disorderly 
conduct), (2) his past-due debts, and (3) his extensive record of speeding and 
other traffic violations.  At the panel’s request following the hearing, Wiseman 
submitted an affidavit and a driving abstract that demonstrated he had not 
committed any further traffic offenses.  Believing that Wiseman had satisfied his 
delinquent accounts and had corrected his bad driving habits, the panel 
recommended that he be approved to sit for the February 2012 bar exam.  On 
February 14, 2012, the board approved his character, fitness, and moral 
qualifications. 
{¶ 4} Before the bar exam, the board discovered that on January 10, 
2012, Wiseman had been charged with receiving stolen property and sought an 
explanation from him.  Wiseman claimed that he had no duty to report the matter 
until it had been finally resolved.  Based upon this new charge and Wiseman’s 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
failure to disclose it, the board reopened the investigation and appointed a panel to 
conduct a second character and fitness hearing. 
{¶ 5} The second panel revisited the issues addressed at the first hearing 
and found that while Wiseman’s testimony at the first panel hearing painted him 
in the best possible light, the transcript of a character and fitness hearing 
conducted by the Florida Board of Bar Examiners on March 16, 2012, presented a 
different perspective on at least one of the incidents.  For example, Wiseman 
testified before the Columbus Bar Association that while working as an 
independent contractor for the Toledo Blade, he was charged with assault—later 
reduced to disorderly conduct—following a fight with a competing newspaper 
carrier, who Wiseman alleged had pushed him when confronted for stealing 
inventory from Wiseman’s storage locker.  Wiseman’s testimony before the 
Florida Board of Bar Examiners, however, shows that Wiseman, who left his car 
and followed the other carrier, was the aggressor.  In another incident, Wiseman 
reported to the bar association that he was charged with criminal damaging after 
two maintenance workers saw him drive across a lawn between two apartment 
complexes while delivering newspapers.  The Florida transcript, however, 
suggests that Wiseman was “flooring it” and that he almost hit someone.  
Moreover, the Florida transcript contains a discussion of another incident in 
which a mother witnessed Wiseman drive recklessly, nearly hitting her preteen 
son who was delivering a competing newspaper.  The mother reportedly chased 
Wiseman down and blocked his car in a driveway so that she could record his 
license plate number, but it does not appear that any charges were filed. 
Financial Matters 
{¶ 6} With regard to Wiseman’s financial standing, the panel found that 
he had reported zero balances on most of his debts but that the report of the 
National Conference of Bar Examiners contradicted his statements.  That report 
showed that at least one of the debts had been sold to collection and another still 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
had a balance, but no payments had been made on the account, and that while 
Wiseman claimed to have filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau about 
a third debt, the creditor reported that it had never received a complaint. 
Traffic Violations 
{¶ 7} The panel also took issue with Wiseman’s significant traffic 
record.  Wiseman received at least 13 citations—many of them for speeding, but 
others for an improper lane change, reckless operation, failure to control, 
improper turn, and driving under suspension.  Wiseman attributed his poor record 
to time-management issues and reported that he had taken steps to rectify the 
problem.  Moreover, Wiseman became argumentative during the first panel 
hearing and challenged the panel’s concerns that his traffic record showed a lack 
of concern for the safety of others, a selective disregard for the law, and a 
willingness to take shortcuts that might indicate a willingness to disobey other 
laws. 
Charge of Receiving Stolen Property 
{¶ 8} Following the first panel hearing, Wiseman submitted an affidavit 
swearing that he had no additional traffic violations, but he neglected to inform 
the board that he had been charged with receiving stolen property after he had 
purchased a Bowling Green State University faculty parking permit from a man 
outside the university parking office.  Wiseman testified that the man, who 
claimed to be a graduate student, offered to sell him a parking pass from a 
selection of student and faculty passes that purportedly belonged to him and his 
roommates.  Wiseman bought a faculty parking pass from the man for $10, 
instead of purchasing a commuter-student pass directly from the university for 
$60.  He admitted to the Florida Board of Bar Examiners that he knew that 
university rules provided such passes were not transferrable, but he claimed that 
trading and purchasing parking passes was a common occurrence on the campus.  
At his second panel hearing in Ohio, however, he claimed that he did not discover 
January Term, 2013 
5 
 
that his conduct violated university policy until after he was charged.  The panel 
did not find this testimony credible.  Nor was the panel persuaded by Wiseman’s 
explanation that he was waiting to fully resolve the matter before disclosing it to 
the office of bar admissions. 
Probate Litigation 
{¶ 9} After his maternal grandparents died and left his mother a sizeable 
estate, Wiseman’s parents established individual trusts and an irrevocable life 
insurance trust that held a second-to-die life insurance policy on the parents’ lives 
that was originally intended to satisfy any estate taxes on the corpora of the other 
trusts.  Wiseman was the trustee of the life insurance trust, and his parents were 
the trustees of their respective trusts.  When his mother died, his father became 
the trustee of her trust.  Wiseman’s father has a lifetime interest in that trust, but 
Wiseman and his brother, Michael, are also beneficiaries. 
{¶ 10} After the Toledo Blade terminated its contract with Wiseman and 
his wife, leaving them without income, Wiseman asked his father for $75,000 to 
support his family of six children while he attended law school.  His father denied 
the request, and near this time Wiseman learned that his parents’ wealth was held 
in the two trusts. 
{¶ 11} Wiseman filed suit seeking an accounting, a distribution, and 
removal of his father as the trustee of his mother’s trust.  His father filed a 
counterclaim alleging that Wiseman and his wife had accepted a $160,000 loan 
from the trusts but had failed to execute a note and mortgage to secure the loan.  
Ultimately, the probate court refused to remove Wiseman’s father as the trustee 
and granted the trusts a judgment against Wiseman and his wife for $160,000 plus 
5.5 percent interest. 
{¶ 12} Wiseman’s legal arguments during that litigation and his testimony 
about that litigation were not always consistent.  For example, in the litigation, 
Wiseman challenged the enforceability of the loan agreement, arguing that 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
pursuant to the statute of frauds and the doctrine of promissory estoppel neither he 
nor his wife had any obligation to repay the money that they used to buy their 
home.  But at the panel hearing in this admissions matter, he acknowledged the 
need for a note and mortgage and indicated that he merely objected to some of the 
terms included in the documents presented for his signature.  And at his hearing in 
Florida, he testified that he had filed the probate action because his father refused 
to give him the money he requested.  But at the panel hearing, Wiseman claimed 
that his impetus to file the suit was his father’s claim that the sons would receive 
nothing from the trusts until the father had passed away, as well as his father’s 
refusal to provide the sons with an accounting. 
Breach of Fiduciary Duties as Trustee of Life Insurance Trust 
{¶ 13} When Wiseman’s father decided to stop paying the premiums for 
the life insurance policy held by the life insurance trust, the policy had a cash 
value of approximately $100,000.  As the trustee, Wiseman could elect to cash in 
the policy, thereby preserving the $100,000 cash value for himself and his 
brother, or he could use that cash value to maintain the policy.  Wiseman initially 
used the cash value to pay the premiums, but when the cash value diminished to 
approximately $75,000, he elected to surrender the policy. 
{¶ 14} Wiseman and his brother were both beneficiaries of the trust and 
the trust did allow for the unequal distribution of trust assets in certain 
circumstances.  Contrary to Wiseman’s claims, however, the trust documents did 
not authorize him to unilaterally make distributions to himself.  Rather, to prevent 
self-dealing, the trust documents required such distributions to be authorized by 
the next eligible successor trustee—a fact that was repeatedly brought to 
Wiseman’s attention by his father’s attorney and his brother’s guardian ad litem. 
{¶ 15} In the course of the ongoing probate litigation, which expanded to 
encompass Wiseman’s management of the life insurance trust, Wiseman claimed 
that he distributed the trust funds to himself for “reinvestment.”  In a March 5, 
January Term, 2013 
7 
 
2012 entry, the probate court ordered Wiseman to provide an accounting of the 
dissipated assets to his brother’s guardian ad litem by April 4, 2012.  Wiseman 
failed to comply with that order.  He gave excuses for his failure to provide the 
documents, and when he did eventually provide them to the guardian as an e-mail 
attachment, he conditioned the guardian’s opening of the attachment on the 
execution of a confidentiality agreement.  Moreover, in response to a show-cause 
order filed on behalf of Wiseman’s father seeking production of the accounting, 
Wiseman threatened to file a grievance against his father’s counsel if he did not 
withdraw the motion.  The probate court eventually ordered that all parties were 
to receive copies of the accounting and threatened to hold Wiseman in contempt if 
failed to provide it. 
{¶ 16} In his March 2012 hearing before the Florida Board of Bar 
Examiners, Wiseman testified that he had absolute discretion to determine how 
the money was used.  While he acknowledged that the money held in the life 
insurance trust had been fully distributed, he left the Florida panel with the 
impression that his brother had received his share, by referring to his brother’s 
investment portfolio, valued at approximately $120,000 to $140,000.  The 
evidence is clear, however, that those funds are separate funds belonging to his 
brother, and none of those funds came from the life insurance trust. 
{¶ 17} Wiseman also advised the Florida Board of Bar Examiners that he 
had presented an accounting to his brother and his father and that although the 
accounting had been accepted by the probate court, the court had not yet ruled on 
the underlying claims.  In fact, the court had issued its order directing him to 
provide an accounting nearly two weeks before his Florida admissions hearing.  
When questioned about this inconsistency in his prior testimony, Wiseman 
claimed that his wife had received the decision on March 12, 2012—four days 
before the hearing in Florida—but that she neither opened the envelope nor 
advised him that it had arrived.  The panel did not find this testimony credible. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
{¶ 18} Wiseman eventually admitted that he had spent all but $256 of the 
$75,000 trust fund for his own benefit, despite having received numerous 
warnings from his brother’s guardian ad litem and his father’s attorney that the 
trust did not authorize him to take all of the trust proceeds for himself.  At the 
June 22, 2012 hearing in this matter, Wiseman, the guardian ad litem, and the 
father’s counsel advised that the parties had reached a settlement regarding all 
claims related to the three trusts and that the settlement agreement would be read 
into the record on June 27, 2012. 
{¶ 19} Although it appeared that these matters have been resolved to the 
satisfaction of the parties, Wiseman’s conduct raises serious questions about his 
character and fitness to practice law. 
Recommendation 
{¶ 20} Citing the conduct described above, as well as several other 
instances of obfuscation and less than credible testimony, the panel and board 
expressed concern that Wiseman believes he is above the law.  Because he has 
demonstrated a disturbing inability to be honest, had given into the temptation of 
misappropriating money held in trust for the benefit not only of himself, but also 
of his younger brother, and has failed to recognize the significant deficiencies in 
his character, the panel and board recommend that we disapprove his pending 
applications and that we prohibit him from reapplying as a candidate for the Ohio 
bar. 
Disposition 
{¶ 21} 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). 
January Term, 2013 
9 
 
{¶ 22} In determining whether the record demonstrates such a deficiency, 
we consider a number of factors, including but not limited to an applicant’s 
pattern of disregarding the laws of this or any other state; failure to provide 
complete and accurate information regarding his or her past; false statements, 
including 
omissions; 
acts 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit, 
or 
misrepresentation; neglect of financial responsibilities; and violation of a court 
order.  See, e.g., Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3)(f), (g), (h), (i), (k), and (m). 
{¶ 23} Wiseman has engaged in a lengthy pattern of traffic offenses and a 
lesser pattern of criminal conduct that demonstrate a perverse disregard for the 
safety and well-being of others.  He has taken shortcuts, knowingly violated rules, 
sued his father, who had expressed legitimate concerns about his financial 
responsibility, and knowingly violated his fiduciary duties as a trustee by 
misappropriating $75,000 held in trust.  He has violated court orders and 
threatened disciplinary action, contempt, and other legal actions against an 
attorney who sought to ethically represent his client within the bounds of the law.  
Moreover, he has engaged in a pervasive pattern of lies and omissions throughout 
this admissions process in an effort to conceal his past conduct and convince this 
court that he possesses the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications to 
practice law in the state of Ohio.  Given the seriousness of Wiseman’s conduct 
and character deficits, we agree that he has not established, nor will he be able to 
establish in the future, that he possesses the requisite character fitness, and moral 
qualifications to practice law in this state.  See, e.g., In re Application of Kapel, 87 
Ohio St.3d 122, 717 N.E.2d 704 (1999) (forever barring an applicant from being 
admitted to the practice of law based on a demonstrated pattern of disregard or 
willful disobedience of societal constraints and his ongoing propensity to violate 
rules and regulations). 
{¶ 24} Accordingly, we disapprove Wiseman’s pending application and 
forever bar him from applying for the privilege to practice law in this state. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Jay Michael Wiseman, pro se. 
Taft, Stettinius, & Hollister, L.L.P, and Michael Alan Byers, for the 
Columbus Bar Association. 
______________________