Case Title: In re Application of Kemp

Citation: 1998-Ohio-550

Docket Number: 19981647

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1998-12-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN RE APPLICATION OF KEMP. 
[Cite as In re Application of Kemp (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Application to take Ohio Bar Examination denied, when — 
Applicant permitted to reapply to take the February 2000 bar examination 
provided he proves by clear and convincing evidence that he has 
successfully undergone counseling and treatment for his alcohol-abuse 
condition and that alcohol abuse is no longer a problem in his life. 
(No. 98-1647 — Submitted September 29, 1998 — Decided December 30, 1998.) 
ON REPORT of the Board of Commissioners on Character 
and Fitness of the Supreme Court, No. 173. 
 
On January 29, 1997, Robert L. Kemp of Lakewood, Ohio, applied for 
admission to the practice of law in Ohio.  On June 10, 1997, after personally 
interviewing Kemp, the Bar Admissions Joint Committee of the Cuyahoga County 
and Cleveland Bar Associations recommended disapproval of his admission to the 
practice of law.  On August 4, 1997, following an appeal hearing, the admissions 
committee upheld the disapproval based on Kemp’s “history of alcohol related 
problems.”  Several members of the committee advised Kemp that he would 
benefit from a six-month alcohol counseling program. Kemp appealed the 
committee’s decision to the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness of 
the Supreme Court (“board”), and a panel of the board heard the matter on January 
6, 1998. 
 
The panel found that in 1985 and 1986, Kemp was arrested and convicted 
for driving while under the influence.  In 1993, Kemp was arrested for criminal 
trespass and attempted burglary.  These charges were subsequently dismissed and 
expunged from Kemp’s record after he agreed to reimburse the homeowner for the 
property damage and was ordered to attend an alcohol counseling program.  In the 
 
2
1993 incident, Kemp had consumed several alcoholic beverages while celebrating 
a Buffalo Bills football victory that guaranteed the team the home-field advantage 
for the playoffs.  While walking from one bar to another, Kemp went behind a 
house and urinated in the backyard.  When Kemp returned to the front of the 
house, he noticed a Christmas wreath on the front door with the Bills’ logo on it.  
Kemp broke the window of the locked storm door, stole the wreath, and walked 
down the street with the wreath on his head.  At the panel hearing as well as in his 
application for admission, Kemp attempted to minimize the seriousness of his 
behavior by emphasizing the significance of the Bills’ victory, describing his 
conduct as “rambunctious,” and claiming that the police “exaggerat[ed]” what had 
actually occurred. 
 
The panel further found that the court-ordered alcohol counseling that 
Kemp attended because of the 1993 incident resulted in the counselor’s 
recommendation that he continue treatment in a recovering alcoholics program.  
Kemp, however, refused further treatment.  At the hearing, as the panel concluded, 
Kemp “expended a great amount of time” challenging the counselor’s statements 
and conclusions “[i]nstead of focusing on the fact that his behavior caused him to 
have to participate in the counseling program and showing remorse for his 
actions.” 
 
Following the joint admissions committee’s August 1997 appeal hearing, 
Kemp followed the recommendation of some of the committee members and 
sought alcohol counseling at the Unbar West Side Mental Health Center 
(“Unbar’). Unbar diagnosed Kemp as suffering from alcohol abuse and 
recommended intensive outpatient treatment.  Unbar, however, released him from 
its program because he was not diagnosed an alcoholic.  Kemp then participated in 
a different alcohol counseling program and advised the panel that he intended to 
 
3
complete the program.  But Kemp left the program one month before its 
completion. 
 
The panel concluded that Kemp had an existing and untreated alcohol-abuse 
condition and that he did not presently have the requisite character, fitness, and 
moral qualifications to be allowed to practice law in Ohio. The panel 
recommended that Kemp be permitted to reapply to take the July 1999 bar 
examination.  The panel further recommended that as part of any new application, 
Kemp must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he has successfully 
undergone counseling and treatment for his alcohol-abuse condition and that 
alcohol abuse is no longer a problem in his life. 
 
The board adopted the panel’s findings and recommendation. 
__________________ 
 
Jay Hanson, for the Bar Admissions Joint Committee of the Cuyahoga 
County and Cleveland Bar Associations. 
 
Robert L. Kemp, pro se. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  In order to be admitted to the practice of law in Ohio, the 
applicant must establish by clear and convincing evidence his “present character, 
fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to the practice of law in Ohio.”  
Gov.Bar R. I(12)(C)(6); In re Application of Mitchell (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 153, 
154, 679 N.E.2d 1127, 1128.  Evidence of an existing and untreated chemical 
dependency reflects adversely on an applicant’s present character, fitness, and 
moral qualifications.  Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3)(b). 
 
After reviewing the evidence, we adopt the findings of the board.  Kemp’s 
untreated and existing alcohol abuse prevents him from having the present 
character and fitness to be admitted to practice law in Ohio.  We believe, however, 
 
4
that Kemp’s continued lack of acknowledgement of the seriousness of his alcohol 
abuse and his repeated reluctance to participate in and complete alcohol 
counseling programs warrant a lengthier period than that recommended by the 
board before Kemp is permitted to reapply for the bar examination.  In this regard, 
Kemp conceded that he attended alcohol counseling programs only at the urging 
of others and not of his own volition.  Like the applicant in In re Application of 
Nemec (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 52, 53, 679 N.E.2d 685, 686, Kemp “should 
demonstrate his freedom from substance abuse for a longer period before being 
permitted to sit for the bar examination.”  See, also, In re Application of Rudolph 
(1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 157, 679 N.E.2d 1130, 1130-1131.  Accordingly, Kemp 
shall be permitted to reapply to take the February 2000 bar examination upon the 
submission of the evidence specified by the board for his application. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.