Case Title: In re Application of Jia

Citation: 2016-Ohio-468

Docket Number: 2015-0538

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2016-02-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as In 
re Application of Jia, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-468.] 
 
 
 
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. 2016-OHIO-468 
IN RE APPLICATION OF JIA. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as In re Application of Jia, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-468.] 
Attorneys—Application for admission to the practice of law—Character and 
fitness—Violation of bar-exam rules by continuing to write after time is 
called—Application disapproved; reapplication permitted. 
(No. 2015-0538—Submitted June 10, 2015—Decided February 11, 2016.) 
ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and 
Fitness of the Supreme Court, No. 613. 
___________________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Lingyu Jia of Columbus, Ohio, is a 2013 graduate of the Case Western 
Reserve University School of Law and has applied as a candidate for admission to 
the Ohio bar.  On the recommendation of the admissions committee of the 
Columbus Bar Association, the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness 
approved Jia’s character and fitness and permitted her to take the July 2014 bar 
exam. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness sua sponte 
investigated Jia’s character, fitness, and moral qualifications after the Board of Bar 
Examiners found that she had violated bar-exam rules by filling in one or more 
answers on the Multistate Bar Exam (“MBE”) after time was called during each of 
the morning and afternoon sessions on July 30, 2014.  Despite a penalty imposed 
for her misconduct by the Board of Bar Examiners, Jia passed the bar exam. 
{¶ 3} After hearing Jia’s testimony and considering the evidence adduced 
at a panel hearing, a panel of the character-and-fitness board recommended that we 
disapprove Jia’s character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to the bar 
at this time but that she be permitted to submit an applicant’s affidavit and a 
completed supplemental character questionnaire on or after May 1, 2016.  The 
panel further recommended that Jia be sworn in as an attorney if the board 
determines that the affidavit and questionnaire reflect no further character and 
fitness issues.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and recommendation. 
{¶ 4} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and disapprove Jia’s character, 
fitness, and moral qualifications and her application for admission to the bar at this 
time but will permit her to seek admission on or after May 1, 2016. 
Facts and Procedural History 
{¶ 5} Jia applied and sat for the July 2014 bar exam.  On the second day of 
the exam, the MBE portion, the day was divided into a morning session and an 
afternoon session.  During each session, the applicants were provided with 100 
multiple-choice questions, for which they were to fill in a bubble on the provided 
answer sheet. 
{¶ 6} The applicants were seated two to a table, diagonally positioned with 
one applicant on each side of the table.  As the morning session wound down, and 
consistent with the written and verbal instructions provided to all applicants, the 
director of the Office of Bar Admissions gave a warning five minutes before the 
session was to end.  Jia received, heard, and understood the instructions.  But when 
January Term, 2016 
 
3
the bar-exam official gave the stop command, Jia continued to fill in bubbles after 
time was called. 
{¶ 7} The male applicant sitting at an adjacent table to the left of and facing 
Jia testified that he looked over and observed Jia fill in about three bubbles after 
time was called.  He did not immediately report his observation to a proctor, though 
he did ask a female applicant at his table—whom he did not know prior to the 
exam—if she had observed Jia writing after the command to stop.  She replied that 
she had not.  Jia does not dispute that she continued to write after time was called 
at the end of the morning session, but she testified that she filled in just one bubble. 
{¶ 8} During the afternoon session, the bar-exam official once again gave a 
five-minute warning before the end of the session.  Five minutes later, she 
instructed the applicants to stop writing and place their materials in the upper-left-
hand corner of the table.  Because of the conversation between the male and female 
applicants at the adjacent table following the morning session, the two applicants 
looked in Jia’s direction to see if she would again write after time was called.  Both 
of the applicants at the adjacent table testified that Jia filled in one bubble after time 
was called.  The next morning, the female applicant advised a proctor of her 
observations.  Jia testified that she was certain that she did not write past the allotted 
time during the afternoon session. 
{¶ 9} The third and final day of the bar exam was a morning-only session 
consisting of six essay questions that were distributed two at a time.  The applicants 
were permitted to type their answers to the essay questions using a laptop computer 
program. 
{¶ 10} Because the female applicant reported her observations the previous 
day, Rosey White, a 13-year employee of the Office of Bar Admissions and a 
proctor for the exam, approached Jia’s table at the end of the time allotted for the 
first two essay questions.  According to White’s testimony, after the instruction to 
exit the program had been given, she observed that Jia did not remove her hands 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
from the keyboard and let them hover over it as if she were going to continue 
typing—but she did not continue to type.  White approached Jia, placed her hand 
on Jia’s shoulder or desk, and gave her a command to stop.  After receiving the 
verbal command, Jia removed her hands from the keyboard and then exited the 
essay program.  Neither the adjacent applicants nor the proctor observed Jia typing 
past the allotted time in either of the remaining essay sessions. 
{¶ 11} Following the bar exam, the male applicant sent an e-mail to the 
director of the Office of Bar Admissions advising her of his observations.  His 
report triggered an investigation by the office and the Board of Bar Examiners. 
{¶ 12} A panel of the Board of Bar Examiners conducted a hearing on 
September 19, 2014, and heard testimony from Jia, both applicants at the adjacent 
table, the other applicant who was seated at Jia’s table, and the proctor who 
observed Jia on the third day of the exam.  Based on that testimony, the panel found 
that Jia knowingly violated bar-exam rules by filling in one or more answers on the 
MBE after time was called at both the morning and afternoon sessions but that there 
was insufficient evidence to conclude that she violated any rule on the third day of 
the bar exam.  The panel also noted that Jia expressed remorse and apologized to 
the board for her actions. 
{¶ 13} The Board of Bar Examiners adopted the panel report and imposed 
a 16.7-percent penalty on the MBE portion of Jia’s exam—a sanction comparable 
to those imposed on applicants who had been determined to have written after time 
was called on an essay question.  Even with that penalty, Jia’s score was high 
enough to pass the bar exam, but the Board of Bar Examiners referred the matter to 
the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness for further review. 
{¶ 14} At the character-and-fitness panel hearing, Jia and the applicants 
from the adjacent table gave testimony largely consistent with their testimony 
before the Board of Bar Examiners.  The panel found the testimony of the applicants 
from the adjacent table to be credible but could not determine whether Jia’s 
January Term, 2016 
 
5
testimony was intentionally inaccurate or whether her recollection of the events was 
clouded by the stress of taking the bar exam.  Consistent with the conclusion of the 
Board of Bar Examiners, the character-and-fitness panel determined that Jia 
continued to write after time was called on two separate occasions on the second 
day of the bar exam and that she had, therefore, failed to prove that she currently 
possesses the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to 
the practice of law in Ohio. 
{¶ 15} Consequently, the panel recommended that we disapprove Jia’s 
pending application to be admitted to the Ohio bar.  The panel further recommended 
that Jia be permitted to submit an applicant’s affidavit and a newly completed 
supplemental character questionnaire on or after May 1, 2016, and that Jia be sworn 
in as an attorney if the board determines that those documents reflect no further 
character and fitness issues.  The Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness 
adopted the panel’s recommendation in its entirety. 
Disposition 
{¶ 16} 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 “justif[y] 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. 
{¶ 17} Applicants must establish the ability to exercise good judgment in 
conducting their professional business affairs; the ability to conduct themselves 
with a high degree of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness in their professional 
relationships and with respect to all legal obligations; the ability to conduct 
themselves with respect for and in accordance with the law and the Ohio Rules of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
Professional Conduct; the ability to comply with deadlines and time constraints; 
and the ability to conduct themselves professionally and in a manner that engenders 
respect for the law and the profession.  Supreme Court of Ohio, Definitions of 
Essential 
Eligibility 
Requirements 
for 
the 
Practice 
of 
Law, 
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/AttySvcs/admissions/pdf/ESSENTIAL_ELIG
IBILITY_REQUIREMENTS.pdf (accessed Dec. 29, 2015) (Nos. 3, 4, 5, 9, and 
10).  Because the evidence shows that Jia continued to write after time was called 
on two separate occasions during the bar exam, we agree that she has failed to 
satisfy her burden. 
{¶ 18} Accordingly, we adopt the character-and-fitness board’s finding that 
in light of her conduct during the bar exam, Jia has failed to prove that she currently 
possesses the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to 
the practice of law in Ohio.  Consequently, we disapprove Jia’s application at this 
time.  However, Jia may submit an applicant’s affidavit and a newly completed 
supplemental character questionnaire to the Office of Bar Admissions on or after 
May 1, 2016, and if those documents reveal no further character and fitness issues, 
Jia may be sworn in as a member of the Ohio bar.     
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter, L.P.A., and Jonathan E. Coughlan, for 
applicant. 
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., and Michael R. Thomas, for 
Columbus Bar Association. 
_________________