Case Title: In re Application of Nemec

Citation: 1997-Ohio-406

Docket Number: 19970412

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1997-06-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN RE APPLICATION OF NEMEC. 
[Cite as In re Application of Nemec (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 52.] 
Attorneys at law — Application to take Ohio Bar Examination denied, when — 
Applicant permitted to reapply to take the July 1998 bar examination. 
(No. 97-412 — Submitted March 31, 1997 — Decided June 18, 1997.) 
ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness of the 
Supreme Court, No. 149. 
 
On April 1, 1996, applicant Andrew Nemec of Cleveland, Ohio, filed an 
application to take the July 1996 Ohio bar examination.  On July 9, 1996, 
applicant was informed that the Joint Admissions Committee of the 
Cleveland/Cuyahoga County Bar Association (“committee”) recommended that 
his application for admission to practice law “be approved with qualifications.”  
The committee’s recommendation of qualified approval was based upon a finding 
of an existing alcohol dependency.  Pursuant to Gov. Bar R. I(11)(E), any approval 
other than an unqualified approval is deemed a recommendation that the applicant 
not be admitted to the practice of law.  On July 25, 1996, the applicant appealed 
the recommendation of the committee to the Board of Commissioners on 
Character and Fitness of the Supreme Court (“board”). 
 
At a December 1996 hearing, a panel of the board found that applicant was 
involved in various alcohol-related traffic incidents from 1983 through 1995.  As 
part of a traffic offense conviction in 1994, applicant was required to attend a 
driver intervention program, at which time he was assessed as “alcohol-dependent 
episodic,” and an alcohol treatment program was recommended.  The panel found 
that at the time of his interview with the committee in 1996 applicant had just 
recently made an appointment with Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”) 
personnel for an assessment regarding his treatment.  The panel found that 
 
2
following his interview applicant began the treatment program, during which he 
admitted that he was using cocaine, a fact not revealed to the committee.  The 
panel found that at the time of its hearing applicant had completed his treatment 
program, abstained from all alcohol and drug use, and adhered to the requirements 
of his contract with OLAP.  Because of applicant’s relatively recent change of 
attitude with respect to alcohol and drugs, the panel concluded that he not be 
recommended for immediate admission, but that he be interviewed by the 
committee after September 1997.  If no adverse matters then existed, applicant 
would be allowed to sit for the February 1998 bar examination. 
 
The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the 
panel. 
__________________ 
 
John Chapman, for the Cleveland/Cuyahoga County Bar Association Joint 
Admissions Committee. 
 
Mary L. Cibella, for applicant. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We accept the findings and conclusions of the board, but 
believe that applicant should demonstrate his freedom from substance abuse for a 
longer period before being permitted to sit for the bar examination.  We therefore 
order that applicant be permitted to reapply to take the July 1998 bar examination, 
to coincide with the approximate date of the conclusion of his two-year contract 
with OLAP. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., 
concur. 
 
DOUGLAS and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., dissent. 
 
3
 
DOUGLAS, J., dissenting.  The panel had the opportunity to view the 
demeanor and sincerity of the applicant and to examine extensively those who 
were monitoring his progress.  The panel was in a better position than we to 
determine whether and when the applicant should be permitted to sit for the bar 
examination.  I would adopt the recommendation of the board and allow applicant 
after further evaluation and investigation to apply to sit for the February 1998 bar 
examination. 
 
F.E. SWEENEY, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.