Case Title: In re Application of Creighton

Citation: 2008-Ohio-852

Docket Number: 20071818

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2008-03-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Application of Creighton, 117 Ohio St.3d 253, 2008-Ohio-852.] 
 
 
 
IN RE APPLICATION OF CREIGHTON. 
[Cite as In re Application of Creighton, 117 Ohio St.3d 253, 2008-Ohio-852.] 
Attorneys – Character and fitness – Applicant lacks requisite fitness, character, 
and moral qualifications for admission to bar because he engaged in 
inappropriate relationship with teenage student while he was her teacher 
and failed to disclose on his law-school application and bar-admission 
application that he had been disciplined for this conduct – Application for 
admission disapproved – Applicant may apply to take the July 2009 bar 
exam but must submit favorable psychological assessment with his 
application. 
(No. 2007-1818—Submitted January 9, 2008—Decided March 5, 2008.) 
ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and  
Fitness of the Supreme Court, No. 350. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Carroll R. Creighton graduated in December 2006 from Ohio 
Northern University Pettit College of Law and has applied to take the Ohio bar 
examination.  The Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness 
recommends that we disapprove the application and deny the applicant permission 
to reapply until the July 2008 bar exam based on findings that he did not disclose 
in his applications for law school and to register for admission to the bar that he 
had been disciplined for improprieties as a school teacher.  We accept the board’s 
recommendation to disapprove; however, we deny the applicant permission to 
reapply for any bar exam before the July 2009 exam and further order him to 
submit a psychological assessment upon his reapplication. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 2} The applicant, a former high school teacher, initially applied to 
take the February 2007 bar exam.  Although the Hardin County Bar Association’s 
bar admissions committee approved his character, fitness, and moral 
qualifications for admission to the Ohio bar, the applicant did not receive the 
board’s final approval before the test date.  The applicant would later apply to 
take the July 2007 bar examination. 
{¶ 3} In March 2007, the board invoked its authority under Gov.Bar R. 
I(10)(B)(2)(e) to sua sponte investigate the applicant’s qualifications.  The 
board’s letter notifying the applicant of the investigation stated that the board had 
reservations about disclosures on his application to register for bar admission 
concerning “two instances of questionable conduct with female students.”  The 
board appointed a panel of three board members, and in June 2007, the panel 
conducted a hearing in the matter. 
{¶ 4} A special investigator presented evidence of incidents at Pandora-
Gilboa High School that had led to disciplinary action against the applicant and 
his later resignation.  Evidence also established that the applicant had made 
various ambiguous and misleading statements in both his application for law 
school and his application to register for bar admission.  The panel recommended 
that the applicant’s application to take the bar exam be disapproved and that he be 
denied permission to reapply for the test until July 2008.  The board adopted this 
recommendation. 
The Underlying Improprieties 
{¶ 5} After graduating from Ohio Northern University as an 
undergraduate in May 2003, the applicant, then 22, accepted a one-year teaching 
position for the 2003-2004 school year.  In September 2003, a local police officer 
observed the applicant and one of his students talking in the student’s car in a 
parking lot around 11:30 p.m.  The officer reported the incident to the high school 
January Term, 2008 
3 
principal, who immediately reprimanded the applicant for violating rules against 
teachers’ fraternizing with students. 
{¶ 6} In April 2004, the principal again confronted the applicant, this 
time about a more serious infraction.  A 15-year-old female student had reported 
to her parents that the applicant had come to their home during the fall of 2003 
while her parents were not there.  According to the student, the applicant had 
kissed her on the mouth while they were talking outside. 
{¶ 7} The applicant denied the girl’s accusation.  But a school guidance 
counselor’s investigation of the allegation unearthed a number of complaints from 
other female students about the applicant’s having made excessively 
complimentary or suggestive remarks that made them uncomfortable.  School 
administrators placed the applicant on an administrative leave of absence as of 
April 13, 2004, and he resigned his position two weeks later. 
{¶ 8} During April and May 2004, Putnam County Job and Family 
Services investigated the kissing incident as a report of sexual abuse.  On the 
advice of his attorney, the applicant did not participate in that investigation.  The 
agency disposed of the case, finding “sexual abuse indicated.” 
{¶ 9} In July 2006, the Ohio Department of Education notified the 
applicant that it intended to determine whether to revoke his teaching permit 
based on his inappropriate personal contacts and relationships with students.  The 
applicant forwent the available hearing procedures, and a hearing officer 
recommended that the department find him in violation of R.C. 3319.31(B)(1) 
(prohibiting conduct unbecoming a teacher).  The department apparently either 
has or will disqualify the applicant from applying for any teaching license, 
certificate, or permit in the future. 
{¶ 10} The full extent of the applicant’s relationship with the 15-year-old-
girl did not come to light until the character and fitness investigation.  The special 
investigator learned that, in fact, the applicant had carried on a month-long 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
romantic relationship with the girl and had engaged in additional improprieties.  
The applicant had kissed the girl when she accepted an invitation to his apartment, 
and he had visited the girl at her home at least twice while her parents were not 
there.  On one of those occasions, the applicant kissed the girl as they sat on a 
sofa, and they then went to a bedroom for another kissing session.  The applicant, 
well aware of the impropriety of the situation, tried to conceal the relationship and 
talked with the girl about “what would happen if her parents found out.” 
The Applicant’s Failure to Disclose 
{¶ 11} On July 16, 2004, the applicant applied to law school at Ohio 
Northern University.  When asked on the application whether he had ever been 
disciplined for unethical conduct as a member of any profession or professional 
organization, the applicant falsely checked no.  The application also asked for the 
applicant’s personal statement about what in his background distinguished him as 
a potential law student.  The applicant’s statement generally criticized the 
teaching profession, lamenting the parents’ “paranoia” and school administrators’ 
“fear [of] liability.”  And in this passage, the applicant reiterated his denial of 
having been involved with a student: 
{¶ 12} “I was well on my way to becoming indoctrinated in the ways of 
fear and liability when my [school] year ended quite abruptly.  On April 17th, a 
female student had accused me of kissing her, six months prior, and claimed that 
Easter had made the guilt too much to bear.  I was placed on administrative leave 
immediately, even amidst my denials of the incident. 
{¶ 13} “And then began the first inkling that teaching may not be for me, 
and that perhaps a different field might be more suited for my talents. * * * I 
realized that maybe words, seemingly so powerless in my battles with the Board 
of Education of Pandora-Gilboa Local Schools, might have more power if they 
were reinforced by a law degree.”  (Emphasis added.)  
January Term, 2008 
5 
{¶ 14} Two years later, on August 14, 2006, the applicant supplemented 
his law-school application to clarify several items.  He stated that he had 
mistakenly answered no when asked whether he had been disciplined as a 
member of a professional organization or a profession.  He explained that he had 
carelessly focused only on the “professional organization” part of the inquiry.  
The applicant then revealed details about the parking-lot incident and admitted 
that he had received a reprimand because of it.  He also referred again to his 
administrative leave of absence, this time adding that he had resigned from his 
teaching position afterward.  The applicant further disclosed that his pupil-activity 
supervisory permit, which had allowed him to coach high school soccer, had 
recently come under review by the Department of Education.  The applicant did 
nothing, however, to retract his denials of the kissing incident or to acknowledge 
the impropriety of his conduct. 
{¶ 15} The day after he supplemented his law-school application, the 
applicant filed his application to register as a candidate for admission to the bar.  
In answer to the question “Have you ever failed to answer fully and truthfully all 
questions on an application for admission to any educational institution?” he 
answered yes, explaining: 
{¶ 16} “On my application [to law school], I misunderstood the question 
regarding disciplinary procedures as a member of a profession or professional 
organization.  I read the question as member of a professional organization only.  
I have discussed this with Assistant Dean Christoff on or about the first of 
August.  I submitted a supplement to my application as of Monday, 8/14/06.  The 
disciplinary action as a member of a profession that I should have referred to is 
disclosed later on this application under the pertinent section.” 
{¶ 17} When instructed by the registration application to list all periods of 
his employment and provide the reason for leaving, the applicant described his 
reason for leaving Pandora-Gilboa Local Schools as follows: “Resignation in lieu 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
of termination due to allegations of misconduct involving a female.”  Then, in 
answer to the question “Have you ever been terminated, suspended, disciplined, 
or permitted to resign in lieu of termination from a job?” the applicant answered 
yes and explained these circumstances:   
{¶ 18} “Allegations arose stating that I had kissed a female student.  I was 
placed on administrative leave on or about April 17, 2004, and then entered my 
resignation on or about April 29, 2004.” 
{¶ 19} He also disclosed: 
{¶ 20} “I was issued a written reprimand for improper conduct with a 
student, dated in September of 2003.  She and I were sitting outside her church in 
the parking lot across the road late at night, speaking about her life and issues she 
was having at the time.” 
The Appropriate 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).  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).  
Necessarily, “[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. 
{¶ 22} The board expounded on the gravity of this applicant’s misdeeds: 
{¶ 23} “Mr. 
Creighton 
indisputably 
failed 
to 
demonstrate 
the 
trustworthiness expected of a professional, whether a teacher or a lawyer, with 
respect to his conduct with young female students during the 2003-2004 school 
year.  He was not forthright in disclosing to the Ohio Northern University College 
of Law the circumstances that led to his resignation from the teaching position.  
Perhaps more damaging, when he supplemented his law school application in 
January Term, 2008 
7 
August 2006, Mr. Creighton referred again to his personal statement that can only 
be fairly read as including a denial that he was guilty of the allegation of kissing a 
student when he was, in fact, guilty of that and more.  The statements on his 
application to register for admission to the Bar are similarly incomplete and 
misleading.” 
{¶ 24} Since the board’s investigation began, the applicant has divulged 
the details of his wrongdoing.  He told investigators about the improprieties in 
which he had engaged as a teacher, admitting the truth of all the allegations 
against him and the falsity of his denials.  The applicant acknowledged that he 
had breached professional responsibilities both in having an unacceptable 
relationship with his student and in failing to fully reveal the circumstances that 
led to his resignation on his law-school and bar-registration applications.  And in 
conceding this wrongdoing, he also acknowledged that his answers to some 
application questions were intentionally misleading. 
{¶ 25} The applicant also admitted that he had failed to disclose that he 
had been disciplined as a teacher, although he continued to maintain that he had 
done so inadvertently because he had misread the question about whether he had 
been disciplined as a member of a profession. 
{¶ 26} At the panel hearing, the applicant frankly admitted that he had not 
possessed the requisite character and fitness for bar admission in April 2004, 
when he resigned from teaching, or in the two years that followed.  He had no 
explanation for his denying and shading the truth except that he was ashamed of 
what he had done.  He testified that he had told himself that if he was ever directly 
asked about his relationship with the girl, he would tell the truth. 
{¶ 27} The applicant insisted, however, that he had undergone dramatic 
character changes since November 2006, when he joined St. Stephen’s Orthodox 
Mission Church.  He said that he now welcomed the opportunity to disclose what 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
he had done and rid himself of any secrecy surrounding the events of his past.  
The applicant apologized to the panel at length, saying: 
{¶ 28} “It’s my own fault I’m here and that fault starts back when I was a 
teacher at Pandora-Gilboa.  My actions there were inappropriate and inexcusable 
* * *.” 
{¶ 29} “I’m here today to clearly and unambiguously attempt to help this 
Panel make a just decision on whether I should be an attorney and also to accept 
responsibility for my actions * * * and to tell the truth in a way that I have not.  
I’m here both to accept responsibility for my actions at Pandora and also to do so 
for failing to disclose on my applications, both my law school application and Bar 
application, which had ambiguous answers, as to why I had to resign.” 
{¶ 30} “I understand that past actions do reflect heavily, and that is 
basically the only way this Panel has to look and see what kind of person I am.  I 
hope today that I can show * * * that since basically November 19 of last year I 
joined St. Stephen’s Orthodox Mission and since that point I have begun a new 
phase, a new process in my life of repentance and of holding myself accountable, 
since at some point I will be held accountable for all my actions on this earth * * 
*.” 
{¶ 31} When asked why he continued as late as August 2006 to give 
ambiguous statements regarding his teaching record and whether he still adhered 
to the views expressed in the personal statement that he submitted with his law-
school application, the applicant testified: 
{¶ 32} “As I was reading my statement I realized, I was actually amazed 
and ashamed of my own arrogance * * *.  * * * I was still trying to hide and still 
trying to run from what I had done and still trying not to accept responsibility for 
it.” 
{¶ 33} “[M]y character as of right now is different * * * because of 
church and of Christ and that didn’t really happen until – it began in June of last 
January Term, 2008 
9 
year but didn’t really fully come to its fruition until I started attending St. 
Stephen’s and became a part of that community and accountable to that 
community, and so I understand and fully accept * * * your reservations because 
you’re right.” 
{¶ 34} The applicant’s minister, two long-time friends, and a member of 
the church congregation attested to the applicant’s good character and integrity.  
All of these witnesses were familiar with the applicant’s past misdeeds but still 
trusted in him.  The minister and long-time friends, all of whom had children, also 
testified that they would or had entrusted the applicant with their children’s care. 
{¶ 35} In In re Application of Kohler, 115 Ohio St.3d 11, 2007-Ohio-
4261, 873 N.E.2d 818, a bar applicant made numerous false representations to 
clients and to partners in a law firm where he worked as a law clerk.  He also 
created bogus documents to conceal his false statements, and his deception went 
on for several months.  None of the four clients he assisted suffered injury, but the 
applicant’s dishonesty cast serious doubt on his ability to abide by ethical 
standards.  That applicant had applied for and passed the February 2006 bar exam, 
but we denied him admission to the bar and prohibited him from reapplying for 
admission before February 2008.  Id. at ¶ 1 and 18. 
{¶ 36} We did not bar the applicant in Kohler from ever applying again to 
the practice of law, because he recognized the gravity of his transgressions and 
had shown overwhelming contrition.  The applicant’s youth and inexperience also 
factored into our decision, as did the fact that he at least took the initiative to 
report his wrongdoing to authority figures.  Id., 115 Ohio St.3d 11, 2007-Ohio-
4261, 873 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16-17.  In contrast, the applicant in this case attempted to 
conceal his even more troubling misdeeds in response to direct questioning. 
{¶ 37} Given his past behavior, this applicant may never be able to 
produce clear and convincing proof that he is qualified to be a member of the 
Ohio bar.  He persuaded the panel and board to give him a second chance, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
however, to the extent that both recommended that he be permitted to reapply to 
take the exam, albeit not until the July 2008 bar exam, and then only with a 
positive psychological assessment.  Because of the applicant’s youth and 
inexperience with standards for teaching young women close to his own age, we 
accept the board’s recommendation and allow him to reapply to take the bar 
exam.  But we require that he show a longer period of rehabilitation. 
{¶ 38} We disapprove the character and moral qualifications of this 
applicant for admission to the Ohio bar and deny him permission to take the Ohio 
bar examination.  The applicant may reapply, in accordance with Gov.Bar R. I(3), 
to take the bar examination to be administered in July 2009.  In reapplying, the 
applicant must submit a favorable psychological assessment prepared by a 
qualified medical professional. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Carroll R. Creighton, pro se. 
Jones Day and Pearson N. Bownas, special investigator for the Supreme 
Court Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness. 
______________________