Case Title: In re Application of Kapel

Citation: 1999-Ohio-304

Docket Number: 19990507

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-10-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Application of Kapel, 87 Ohio St.3d 122, 1999-Ohio-304.] 
 
 
 
 
 
IN RE APPLICATION OF KAPEL. 
[Cite as In re Application of Kapel (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 122.] 
Attorneys at law — Application to take Ohio Bar Examination denied when 
applicant fails to prove his character and fitness to practice law — 
Applicant never to be admitted to the practice of law in Ohio — Gov.Bar R. 
I(12)(C)(6), applied. 
(No. 99-507 — Submitted July 28, 1999 — Decided October 13, 1999.) 
ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness of the 
Supreme Court, No. 153. 
 
After our decision in In re Application of Kapel (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 532, 
651 N.E.2d 955, denying applicant, Kevin M. Kapel, permission to sit for the 
February 1995 Ohio bar examination, applicant applied to take the July 1996 bar 
examination.  The Geauga County Bar Association disapproved, and in August 
1996, the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness of the Supreme Court 
(“board”) appointed a panel to hear the applicant’s appeal of that disapproval.  The 
hearing which was twice delayed was eventually rescheduled for April 10, 1998. 
 
As a result of the April 1998 hearing at which applicant represented himself, 
the panel found that in October 1995, applicant’s former girlfriend charged him 
with menacing and with theft of her cat, but those charges were later dropped with 
 
2 
the understanding that applicant would pay court costs.  The panel also found that 
in 1996, applicant received two traffic citations and an additional traffic citation in 
October 1997.  Further, in November 1997, applicant was charged with trespassing 
when he attempted to recover his automobile from a transmission shop.  During a 
deposition of applicant’s former girlfriend on June 3, 1998 in connection with the 
hearing, applicant engaged in an acrimonious colloquy with Judge Sara Lioi, a 
panel member, because she declined to allow applicant to have his sixteen-year-old 
daughter act as his assistant during the deposition. 
 
The panel concluded that even after our decision in In re Application of 
Kapel, applicant continued to demonstrate a pattern of disregard of, or willful 
disobedience of, societal constraints and a continued propensity to violate rules and 
regulations.  It concluded that applicant’s conduct while his applications to sit for 
the bar were pending and his conduct during the panel  hearings indicated that he 
did not currently possess the requisite character and fitness to practice law in Ohio 
and was unlikely ever to meet such requirements.  The panel recommended that his 
application to practice law be denied and that he not be permitted to reapply.  The 
board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Richard J. Makowski, for Geauga County Bar Association. 
 
Alvin E. Mathews, Jr., for applicant. 
 
3 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Gov.Bar R. I(12)(C)(6) provides that in the hearing on appeal 
to the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness from an adverse 
recommendation by a bar association admissions committee, “The burden of proof 
* * * shall be on the applicant to establish by clear and convincing evidence the 
applicant’s present character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to the 
practice of law in Ohio.”  After reviewing the record, we also find that applicant 
did not present clear and convincing evidence of his qualifications. 
 
Therefore, we concur with the board’s findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation.  Applicant’s application to sit for the Ohio bar examination is 
hereby denied, and applicant is never to be admitted to the practice of law in Ohio.1 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., 
concur. 
 
F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., dissent and would permit applicant to 
reapply in two years. 
FOOTNOTE: 
 
1. 
Our review indicates that in October 1996, applicant applied to take the 
February 1997 bar examination.  Our denial includes denial of that application.