Case Title: In re Application of Acton

Citation: 2009-Ohio-499

Docket Number: 20081681

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2009-02-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Application of Acton, 121 Ohio St.3d 154, 2009-Ohio-499.] 
 
 
 
IN RE APPLICATION OF ACTON. 
[Cite as In re Application of Acton, 121 Ohio St.3d 154, 2009-Ohio-499.] 
Attorneys — Examination of character and fitness — Record of traffic and other 
misdemeanor convictions — Reapplication allowed on conditions. 
(No. 2008-1681 — Submitted November 19, 2008 — Decided  
February 12, 2009.) 
ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and  
Fitness of the Supreme Court, No. 375. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Applicant, Lawrence Regis Acton of Cleveland, Ohio, has applied 
to register as a candidate for admission to the Ohio bar and to take the Ohio bar 
examination. The Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness recommends 
that we disapprove, for now, his application to take the bar examination, citing his 
extensive record of traffic-related and other misdemeanor convictions and his 
failure to sufficiently disclose on the registration application a default judgment 
for credit card debt.  We accept the board’s recommendation to disapprove the 
pending application.  The applicant may apply for the July 2010 bar exam, 
provided that he first submit to an assessment by the Ohio Lawyers Assistance 
Program and complete any recommended treatment program. 
{¶ 2} The applicant entered Case Western Reserve University School of 
Law in August 2005 and filed his registration application in January 2007.  In 
June 2007, the Joint Admissions Committee of the Cuyahoga County and 
Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Associations provisionally approved the applicant’s 
character, fitness, and moral qualifications.  The board advised the applicant in 
August 2007, however, that it had sua sponte invoked its investigatory authority 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
under Gov.Bar R. I(10)(B)(2)(e) to inquire further into his lengthy traffic record 
and his history of other misdemeanor convictions. 
{¶ 3} The applicant applied in early May 2008 to take the bar 
examination to be administered in July 2008.  Later that May, a panel of the board 
conducted a hearing to examine the applicant’s qualifications for bar admission.  
After making certain factual findings, the panel recommended disapproval but 
also recommended allowing the applicant to apply for the bar exam to be 
administered in July 2009.  The board adopted the panel’s findings and 
recommendation for disapproval, but further recommended that the applicant be 
denied the opportunity to take any exam before the July 2010 bar exam. 
{¶ 4} The applicant has not objected to the board’s report. 
The Applicant’s Traffic-Related and Other Convictions 
{¶ 5} The applicant’s character questionnaire, filed in connection with 
his registration application, revealed a history of convictions from mid-June 1997 
through November 2006.  The applicant was found guilty eight times of speeding; 
on three other occasions he opted to waive a hearing and pay his speeding tickets; 
and in another case he was cited for speeding but was found guilty of a reduced 
charge.  He was found guilty of misdemeanor assault on a felonious-assault 
charge and of disorderly conduct on a misdemeanor assault charge.  Convictions 
of disorderly conduct also resulted from two charges of underage alcohol 
consumption, and a fourth conviction resulted from a charge of criminal 
damaging.  He was convicted on a reduced charge after being cited for driving 
under a license suspension and was found guilty on charges of failure to yield, 
failure to obey traffic signals, and making an unlawful U-turn, among other traffic 
citations, including a seat-belt violation for which he forfeited bond.  He was also 
found guilty two times of offenses related to disturbing the peace, and on four 
more occasions, he forfeited bond after being cited for such disturbances. 
January Term, 2009 
3 
{¶ 6} From the supplemental character questionnaire filed in connection 
with his application to take the bar exam, the panel learned that the applicant had 
been convicted of speeding four more times since he filed his registration 
application.  From the applicant’s testimony, the panel learned that he had not 
disclosed a fifth speeding citation in response to this question on the supplemental 
questionnaire:  “State whether, since registering as a candidate for admission to 
the practice of law, you * * * have been summoned for a violation of any statute, 
regulation, or ordinance.”  The applicant claimed that someone in the Office of 
Bar Admissions had told him that he did not need to disclose the citation.  The 
panel and board disbelieved this explanation. 
{¶ 7} The applicant expressed remorse during the hearing and readily 
acknowledged that his past behavior had demonstrated forgetfulness, 
irresponsibility, and immaturity.  He promised to improve.  Neither the panel nor 
the board, however, was convinced that the applicant could currently manage his 
behavior to comply with legal limits. 
{¶ 8} The applicant attempted to explain why, after receiving notice of 
the board’s investigation into his traffic and other misdemeanor record, he 
persisted in speeding and accumulated four more citations.  As evidence of the 
applicant’s indifference to traffic laws, the panel and board cited this colloquy: 
{¶ 9} “Q.  Can you give us any explanation as to why you continued to 
violate the traffic laws despite the fact that in August of 2007 you realized that 
you were being questioned on your history of driving problems?  Can you give us 
an explanation why you keep speeding? 
{¶ 10} “A.  Yeah.  I want to be careful with what I say because I don’t 
want to make an excuse for anything.  I violated the law and I understand that.  
That being said I am just forgetful.  I have attention deficit disorder and I am 
forgetful and sometimes I forget to pay attention to the — to the speedometer or, 
you know, I just — I am not as diligent as I should be with focusing and paying 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
attention to how fast I am going.  None of this — none of the speeding violations 
were major, you know, 20 or 30 miles over.  They were all 8 to 10 miles over, 12 
miles.  This is not an excuse.  One mile over you broke the law.  I am just saying I 
forgot sometimes to look at a speedometer or I — maybe I was — in certain 
circumstances had tried to do too many things in a day and was in a rushed 
manner and so at those times, you know, I was rushing around not thinking about 
how fast I was going but none of those excuse. 
{¶ 11} “ * * * 
{¶ 12} “Q.  Do you think this attention deficit disorder affects your 
ability to abide by the law? 
{¶ 13} 
“A.  No.  The way it’s worked for me in the past is I have been 
slow to learn my lessons.  So I’ve made mistakes previously and not — not 
woken up to looking for and preventing myself from making — from doing those 
things in the future and what it takes to do those things.” 
{¶ 14} Because of his attention deficit disorder, the applicant received a 
disability accommodation from his law school, allowing him extra time in taking 
final exams.  He has also asked for extra time in taking the bar exam, but has been 
granted only the opportunity to complete the test in a semiprivate room.  Despite 
the applicant’s need for accommodation throughout law school and in taking the 
bar, he answered “no” to this question on both his registration and bar exam 
applications:  “Do you currently have any * * * condition or impairment * * * that 
in any way affects, or if left untreated might affect, your ability to practice law in 
a competent and professional manner?”   
The Applicant’s Failure to Disclose a Default Judgment 
{¶ 15} 
The applicant also acknowledged that he failed to fully disclose 
on his bar registration application the entry of a default judgment against him in 
2001 for unpaid credit card debt.  Although at one point in the application he cited 
the judgment, the applicant answered “no” to the following questions on that 
January Term, 2009 
5 
January 2007 application: (1) “Have you had any debts of $500 or more 
(including credit cards, charge accounts, and student loans) that have been more 
than 90 days past due within the past three years?” (2) “Have you ever had a 
credit card or charge account revoked?” and (3) “Have you ever defaulted on any 
other debt?” 
{¶ 16} 
Upon further inquiry, the applicant claimed that he must have 
misread the question.  The panel and board, however, detected the applicant’s 
indifference toward financial responsibility from this colloquy: 
{¶ 17} “Q.  Okay, in 2001, you got a default judgment against you for 
money owed on a credit card?  
{¶ 18} 
“A. Right. 
{¶ 19} “Q.  You didn’t fill in the answer to the question * * * has the 
judgment been satisfied.  If not, how much is still owing? 
{¶ 20} 
“A.  As far as I know, I don’t think it’s ever been satisfied or if it 
has, it’s possible that my dad paid it.  My dad told me, you know, he would — he 
told me that — just not to pay it because the majority of it was interest or 
something.  But, no, I have never — I never satisfied it. 
{¶ 21} “Q.  Okay.  That’s been six, seven years ago.  Do you intend to 
satisfy it? 
{¶ 22} “A.  I don’t — honestly I don’t — I had completely not thought 
about it.  I believe it’s with Discover Card.  I don’t know—to be honest with you 
my dad used to help me out with my finances when I was young. So if he’s made 
a payment on it, it’s possible. 
{¶ 23} 
“Q. Do you think you ought to check? 
{¶ 24} “A. Yeah, obviously.” 
Disapproval of the Applicant’s Character and Fitness Is Warranted 
{¶ 25} An applicant to the Ohio bar must prove by clear and convincing 
evidence that he or she “possesses the requisite character, fitness, and moral 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
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. 
{¶ 26} As the panel and board found, this applicant has failed to satisfy 
his burden of proof.  “[A] pattern of disregard of the laws of this state” is a factor 
that weighs against allowing admission to the practice of law in Ohio.  Gov.Bar 
R. I(11)(D)(3)(f).  Likewise, “[f]ailure to provide complete and accurate 
information concerning the applicant’s past” may constitute a basis for 
disapproval.  Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3)(g).  An applicant’s “[n]eglect of financial 
responsibilities” bodes ill for his or her ability to oversee the financial and other 
interests of clients with the diligence and integrity this profession requires.  See 
Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3)(k).  Moreover, the possibility that a mental disorder may 
impede an applicant’s ability to practice law in a competent and professional 
manner must also be factored into our decision.  See Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3)(e). 
{¶ 27} All of these points weigh in favor of disapproval of this applicant.  
As the panel and board aptly observed: 
{¶ 28} “[T]aking into consideration * * * the Applicant’s continued 
pattern of disregard of the traffic laws of the State of Ohio; failure to provide 
complete and accurate information concerning the Applicant’s past; the 
Applicant’s nondisclosure of pertinent information; the Applicant’s apathy or 
inability to appreciate and/or neglect of his financial responsibilities; and evidence 
of mental disorder, which untreated could affect the Applicant’s ability to practice 
law, * * * [we find] that the Applicant has not met his burden by clear and 
convincing evidence that he currently possesses the requisite character and fitness 
to sit for the Ohio Bar.” 
January Term, 2009 
7 
{¶ 29} 
Accepting the board’s report, we disapprove this applicant’s 
pending application 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 2010.  In 
reapplying, the applicant must first submit to an assessment by the Ohio Lawyers 
Assistance Program and complete any recommended treatment program. 
Judgment accordingly. 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O'DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Lawrence Regis Acton, pro se. 
Nalan, Romaine & Schneiberg and Michael M. Courtney, for the 
Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association. 
______________________