Case Title: In re Application of Howard

Citation: 2006-Ohio-5486

Docket Number: 20060755

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-11-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Application of Howard, 111 Ohio St.3d 220, 2006-Ohio-5486.] 
 
 
IN RE APPLICATION OF HOWARD. 
[Cite as In re Application of Howard, 111 Ohio St.3d 220, 2006-Ohio-5486.] 
Attorneys — Character and fitness — History of misdemeanor convictions and 
academic misconduct weigh against approval of application for admission 
to the bar — Application to register as a candidate for admission to the 
bar disapproved. 
(No. 2006-0755 — Submitted June 20, 2006 — Decided November 8, 2006.) 
ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character  
and Fitness of the Supreme Court, No. 318. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} On August 16, 2004, Micheal Habib Howard applied to register as 
a candidate for admission to the practice of law in Ohio.  On November 3, 2004, 
he applied to take the February 2005 Ohio bar examination.  The applicant was 
granted a waiver of the November 1 application deadline on the condition that the 
Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness approved of his character, 
fitness, and moral qualifications three weeks prior to the examination. 
{¶ 2} On June 6, 2005, the Admissions Committee of the Toledo Bar 
Association disapproved of the applicant’s qualifications, citing his criminal 
record and the fact that he had committed an honor-code violation in law school.  
The applicant appealed, and a panel of the board heard the cause on December 14, 
2005. 
{¶ 3} Based on the application materials submitted prior to and at the 
hearing, the board recommended that the applicant be disapproved but that he be 
permitted to “reapply for the July 2007 Bar Examination upon the filing of a new 
application and re-interview [with] the Admissions Committee of the Toledo Bar 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Association.” The applicant has not objected to the board’s findings of fact or 
recommendation. 
{¶ 4} On review, we agree that this applicant has not shown that he is a 
proper candidate for admission to the practice of law in this state. 
{¶ 5} An applicant has the burden to prove by clear and convincing 
evidence that he or she possesses the requisite character, fitness, and moral 
qualification for admission to the practice of law.  Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(1).  An 
applicant’s record of conduct must justify “the trust of clients, adversaries, courts 
and others with respect to the professional duties owed to them” and demonstrate 
that the applicant “satisfies the essential eligibility requirements for the practice of 
law” as defined by law.  Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3).  To ensure that the record does 
not manifest “a significant deficiency in the honesty, trustworthiness, diligence or 
reliability” of an applicant, the rule lists several factors that weigh against 
approval, including whether the applicant has committed any crimes, engaged in 
academic misconduct, or has habitually disregarded the law in a pattern of 
behavior.  Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3)(a), (d), and (f). 
{¶ 6} This applicant’s bar examination and admission materials are 
saturated with these three ethical impediments.  First, the applicant has a troubling 
criminal record of misdemeanor convictions.  He pleaded no contest in 1997 to 
obstructing official business, he was convicted in 1999 for disorderly conduct, 
and he was convicted again in 2000 for attempted possession of marijuana.  Of 
equal concern are the many other times that the applicant was accused of criminal 
conduct, even though the charges were dismissed.  From 1995 until 2001, the 
applicant’s record reveals charges for assault and battery, underage possession of 
alcohol, possession or use of marijuana, burglary, and aggravated menacing, as 
well as multiple traffic offenses and criminal building-code violations. 
{¶ 7} At the hearing, the applicant assured the panel that when he 
decided to become a lawyer, he had changed his lifestyle and turned over a new 
January Term, 2006 
3 
leaf.  The board was not convinced, noting that the applicant had been charged 
with four crimes in 2001, just about the time he was accepted to attend law 
school.  We share the board’s skepticism. 
{¶ 8} The applicant also has a significant record of academic 
misconduct.  On June 2, 2003, after his purported reformation, the applicant was 
suspended for a semester from the University of Toledo College of Law because 
he plagiarized material for a writing assignment.  While an undergraduate, the 
applicant was also issued a “letter of warning” for copying another student’s 
homework assignment during the 1995 autumn quarter at the Ohio State 
University. 
{¶ 9} The applicant also tended to avoid or shade the truth during the 
character and fitness proceedings, which constitutes a false statement or an 
omission to be considered under Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3)(h).  The board doubted 
the applicant’s credibility because he was vague and evasive when answering 
questions about his criminal record.  So do we. 
{¶ 10} As one example, the board referred to the assault and aggravated-
menacing charges against the applicant, which evidently arose out of an 
altercation between the applicant and a former girlfriend in a bar.  The charges 
were ultimately dismissed because the complaining witnesses, the girlfriend and a 
friend who was with her in the bar, did not appear for the trial.  Upon initial 
inquiries at the panel hearing, the applicant claimed that he did not recall the 
specifics of the incident other than that he had thrown a drink at a woman and had 
told another woman that he was going to kill her.  After more intense questioning, 
however, the applicant reluctantly remembered precisely who the women were 
and that his former girlfriend had also accused him of having grabbed her arm and 
having thrown her against a wall. 
{¶ 11} Similarly, the board was not impressed with respondent’s 
explanation for why he had pleaded guilty to the marijuana-possession charge.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
The applicant had been charged with felony drug possession because authorities 
found approximately half a pound of marijuana in his bedroom while executing a 
search warrant on his family’s home.  The applicant denied all responsibility for 
the marijuana, which he said belonged to one of his brothers, and claimed that he 
was living at his summer cottage at that time.  The applicant nevertheless pleaded 
guilty to the reduced misdemeanor charge, purportedly on his lawyer’s advice that 
the applicant would be charged even if he inculpated his brother. 
{¶ 12} Evidence also suggested that the applicant had not been forthright 
and candid when he initially discussed his law school honor-code violation with 
members of the bar association.  According to the chairman of the bar admissions 
committee that interviewed the applicant, he first suggested that his plagiarism 
involved only an initial draft of a paper and that he had not understood that 
copying was unacceptable in his preliminary work.  The applicant’s law 
professor, however, confirmed to the committee that the applicant had plagiarized 
material in both the draft and the final version of his paper. 
{¶ 13} Finally, we also share the board’s reservations about the 
applicant’s asserted lack of responsibility for rental property that he co-owned.  
The applicant at one time owned various rental properties jointly with his 
brothers, and they eventually formed the Four Howards, L.L.C., to manage it.  
While he was co-owner, the applicant was sued relative to several property 
disputes.  The applicant claimed that he was named by mistake, inasmuch as he 
was a law student at the time, had held only lower-level jobs in his brothers’ 
business, and was not actively involved in managing their property.  Attached to 
one of the complaints against the Four Howards, however, is an October 2003 
letter to a tenant that the applicant signed as “President of Four Howards, L.L.C.” 
{¶ 14} In summary, the board concluded: 
{¶ 15} “[T]he past record of conduct of the applicant * * * seems to 
reflect a pattern of disregard for the law and action that involves deceit or 
January Term, 2006 
5 
misrepresentation.  These concerns are only magnified by the seemingly evasive 
and less than candid demeanor of the applicant during the hearing.  While counsel 
for the applicant sought to explain this by arguing that Mr. Howard was simply 
nervous, not evasive, the Board disagrees.  The Board remains unconvinced that 
the applicant was being candid, forthright and open during the hearing before the 
panel.  He appeared to be withholding information and making it difficult to 
obtain a full and complete picture of his various activities.  The Board, therefore, 
concludes that the applicant does not currently possess the requisite character, 
fitness and moral qualifications for admission to the practice of law.” 
{¶ 16} We adopt the board’s findings and recommendation to disapprove 
applicant’s request.  We make no finding as to whether the applicant can 
rehabilitate his character, fitness, and moral qualification, however, or as to when 
rehabilitation might permit him to reapply as a candidate for admission pursuant 
to Gov.Bar R. I(2).  Accordingly, the application to register as a candidate for 
admission to the Ohio bar is therefore disapproved. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Robison, Curphey & O’Connell, L.L.C., and David W. Stuckey, for 
relator. 
 
Arnold, Caruso, Green & Belazis, Ltd., and James D. Caruso; and Norman 
A. Abood, for applicant. 
______________________