Case Title: In re Application of Callam

Citation: 2017-Ohio-4361

Docket Number: 2016-1240

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2017-06-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as In 
re Application of Callam, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-4361.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2017-OHIO-4361 
IN RE APPLICATION OF CALLAM. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as In re Application of Callam, Slip Opinion No.  
2017-Ohio-4361.] 
Attorneys—Character and fitness—Lack of candor during admissions process—
License revoked and reapplication in two years permitted. 
(No. 2016-1240—Submitted February 7, 2017—Decided June 21, 2017.) 
ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness of the 
Supreme Court, No. 636. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Michael Alexander Callam, of Macedonia, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0092109, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio on 
November 17, 2014, after passing the Ohio bar examination administered in July 
of that year. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 2} On April 17, 2015, the Office of Bar Admissions received a letter 
from the Geauga County Prosecuting Attorney relating that beginning in September 
2013, Callam had been investigated by the Ohio Department of Insurance, had been 
untruthful during that investigation in interviews conducted in January and 
September 2014, and had surrendered his Ohio insurance license for cause in 
October 2014.  The Office of Bar Admissions received another letter about Callam 
after he was indicted on two counts of complicity relating to charges filed against 
his father for securing writings by deception and selling insurance without a license.  
Based on those communications, the Board of Commissioners on Character and 
Fitness exercised its sua sponte authority to commence an investigation pursuant to 
Gov.Bar R. I(10)(B)(6) (directing the board to investigate allegations about false 
statements in applications brought to its attention after an applicant has been 
admitted to the bar). 
{¶ 3} A panel of the board conducted a hearing and recommended that we 
revoke Callam’s license to practice law and permit him to reapply for admission to 
the bar in two years.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and 
recommendation that we revoke Callam’s license but recommended that he not be 
permitted to reapply for admission to the bar.  Callam objects, arguing that his 
conduct does not warrant permanent disbarment.  On review, we adopt the board’s 
findings of fact and recommendation to revoke Callam’s license to practice law, 
but we will permit him to reapply for admission to the Ohio bar in two years. 
Facts 
{¶ 4} Callam obtained his Ohio insurance license in June 2009.  Thereafter, 
his father, William, began meeting with prospective insurance clients at a restaurant 
Callam owned.  Although William surrendered his Ohio insurance license in 2007, 
he continued to sell insurance products.  He sometimes completed the applications 
and had Callam sign them as the insurance agent.  But Callam, believing that his 
January Term, 2017 
 
3
father was a licensed insurance agent, also authorized William to sign applications 
on his behalf. 
{¶ 5} In 2013, a customer filed a complaint with a life-insurance company 
alleging that William had misrepresented the attributes of an insurance policy, that 
William was not licensed to sell insurance, and that she had never discussed 
insurance products with Callam.  William drafted a response to the insurer’s 
inquiry, falsely stating that Callam had been the agent who personally dealt with 
the client.  Callam signed the response and adopted it as his own.  The insurer took 
no further action on the client’s claim. 
{¶ 6} After receiving a complaint from the client, the Ohio Department of 
Insurance commenced its own investigation into the matter.  During a January 24, 
2014 interview, Callam told investigators that he had dealt with the client on 
numerous occasions, that he had explained the product to her many times, and that 
he—not his father— had been the primary contact with his clients on all insurance 
issues.  At the end of the interview, the investigators asked Callam to provide a list 
of all the clients to whom he had sold insurance.  He obtained a list from his father 
and provided it to investigators without independently verifying its accuracy. 
{¶ 7} Two months after his interview with the Department of Insurance 
investigators, Callam applied to take the July 2014 bar exam, but he failed to 
disclose his interactions with the agency on his application.  He took the bar exam 
in July 2014. 
{¶ 8} During a second Department of Insurance interview in September 
2014, investigators informed Callam that they knew that he had not told the truth 
at his first interview.  Nonetheless, Callam declined to correct his prior statements 
and, when pressed by the investigators, steadfastly maintained that he had not 
signed any insurance applications without having personally met the prospective 
client.  Before the interview concluded, Callam asked the investigators what they 
wanted from him.  They responded that they wanted him to surrender his insurance 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
license for cause because he was aiding and abetting his father’s selling insurance 
without a license to clients whom Callam had never met.  Expressing concern about 
his legal career, Callam requested some time to think about the investigators’ 
request. 
{¶ 9} On October 1, 2014, Callam submitted a request to surrender his 
insurance license for cause, indicating that he was under investigation for violating 
R.C. 3905.14(B)(9) (using fraudulent, coercive, or dishonest practices or 
demonstrating incompetence, untrustworthiness, or financial irresponsibility in the 
conduct of business in this state or elsewhere), 3905.14(B)(13) (knowingly 
accepting insurance business from an individual who is not licensed), and 
3905.14(B)(39) (knowingly aiding and abetting another person in the violation of 
any insurance law of this state). 
{¶ 10} Callam now admits that although he was under a continuing 
obligation to update his registration and bar-exam applications, he failed to notify 
the Office of Bar Admissions of (1) the Department of Insurance investigation, (2) 
the surrender of his insurance license for cause, (3) a civil lawsuit filed against him 
and William on October 9, 2014, by the insurance client whose complaint triggered 
the Department of Insurance investigation, or (4) a civil lawsuit filed against him 
and other parties on July 8, 2014. 
{¶ 11} In his testimony before the panel, Callam also admitted that he had 
provided untruthful answers throughout both of his interviews with the Department 
of Insurance investigators.  He stated that he first learned of William’s felony 
conviction and corresponding surrender of his insurance license during the 
insurance company’s investigation.  He acknowledged that he signed the false 
response crafted by his father and submitted it to the insurance company.  And 
although he initially stated that he lied in an attempt to protect William from the 
consequences of William’s criminal misconduct, he ultimately admitted that he was 
also trying to protect himself and his anticipated admission to the bar.  He further 
January Term, 2017 
 
5
testified that he has learned from his mistakes and that going forward, he would 
always choose to tell the truth. 
{¶ 12} Callam ultimately pleaded guilty to a single count of complicity to 
sell insurance without a license, a first-degree misdemeanor, see R.C. 
2923.03(A)(2) and 3905.02, and a felony charge against him was dismissed.  He 
received a suspended 30-day jail sentence, was fined $750 plus costs, and was 
placed on monitored time for one year.  He testified that he had been dismissed 
from the lawsuit filed against him in July 2014 but that a judgment for $72,275 had 
been entered against two business entities owned wholly or partly by him in that 
case and that the lawsuit filed against him and William by his former insurance 
client remained pending. 
Recommendation and Objections 
{¶ 13} The panel found that Callam failed to disclose critical information 
on his registration and bar-exam applications and failed to discharge his continuing 
duty to update the information contained in his applications until he was admitted 
to the practice of law, see Gov.Bar R. I(2)(F) and I(3)(F).  The panel determined 
that his conduct was egregious and adversely affected his ability to satisfy the 
essential eligibility requirements for the practice of law, including his ability to 
exercise good judgment in conducting his professional business; to conduct himself 
with a high degree of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness in all professional 
relationships and with respect to all legal obligations; and to use honesty and good 
judgment in financial dealings on behalf of himself, clients, and others.  See 
Supreme Court of Ohio, Definitions of Essential Eligibility Requirements for the 
Practice of Law, Requirement Nos. 3, 4, and 8, http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ 
AttySvcs/admissions/pdf/ESSENTIAL_ELIGIBILITY_REQUIREMENTS.pdf 
(accessed Apr. 25, 2017). 
{¶ 14} Callam’s employer and his girlfriend, both of whom are attorneys, 
testified that they hold him in high regard and believe that they can trust him.  But 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
the panel noted that a person’s judgment is often clouded by that person’s personal 
relationships—just as Callam’s judgment was clouded by his relationship with his 
father. 
{¶ 15} Ultimately, the panel was not convinced that Callam had remediated 
his past misconduct, and concluded that he “is open and truthful when he must be 
so, or when it benefits him.”  Moreover, the panel noted that timely disclosure of 
the incidents at issue would have triggered a sua sponte investigation by the board 
before Callam was admitted to the bar and therefore would have prevented him 
from arguing that he should be permitted to retain his license to practice law on the 
ground that he has done nothing since his admission to place his clients at risk. 
{¶ 16} Based on the foregoing, the panel recommended that Callam’s 
license to practice law be revoked but that he be permitted to reapply in two years 
by filing a new registration application, submitting to a complete background check 
by the National Conference of Bar Examiners, and submitting to a full character 
and fitness review. 
{¶ 17} The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and recommendation 
that Callam’s license be revoked but further recommends that he be prohibited from 
reapplying for admission to the Ohio bar.  Callam objects to the board’s 
recommendation and argues that his conduct does not warrant the board’s 
recommended sanction, which is the functional equivalent of permanent 
disbarment. 
{¶ 18} Having reviewed the board’s report and the record, we agree that 
Callam failed to demonstrate that he possesses the requisite character, fitness, and 
moral qualifications under Gov.Bar R. I(11) to be admitted to the bar.  Callam’s 
failure to provide complete and accurate information in his applications to this court 
casts significant doubt on his honesty, his good judgment, and his ability to conduct 
himself in a manner that engenders respect for the law and the profession. 
January Term, 2017 
 
7
{¶ 19} We have disapproved bar-exam applications in which the applicants 
failed to disclose materially adverse information regarding past conduct in their 
registration and bar-exam applications.  See, e.g., In re Application of Coll, __ Ohio 
St.3d __, 2017-Ohio-4023, __N.E.3d __; In re Application of Steinhelfer, 142 Ohio 
St.3d 120, 2015-Ohio-978, 28 N.E.3d 107; In re Application of Worthy, 136 Ohio 
St.3d 142, 2013-Ohio-3018, 991 N.E.2d 1131.  And in the rare instance in which 
applicants’ false statements and omissions came to light after they had passed the 
bar exam and been admitted to the Ohio bar, we revoked their licenses to practice 
law but permitted them to reapply for admission at a later time.  For example, in In 
re Dabney, 107 Ohio St.3d 40, 2005-Ohio-5834, 836 N.E.2d 573, the applicant’s 
failure to disclose her past criminal convictions came to light after her admission 
to the Ohio bar and during a character and fitness investigation relating to her 
application for admission to the Nevada bar.  While we were troubled by her past 
criminal conduct, including her use of false identification and multiple aliases 
during her arrests, we noted that her dishonesty did not extend beyond her answers 
to the application questions about her criminal history.  Id. at ¶ 13.  Therefore, we 
revoked her license but permitted her to reapply the following year by filing a 
supplemental character questionnaire and successfully completing a full character 
and fitness investigation.  Id. at ¶ 15; see also In re Application of Sandler, 63 Ohio 
St.3d 372, 588 N.E.2d 779 (1992) (revoking license of an attorney based on his 
failure to timely disclose his criminal history during the admissions process and his 
false testimony under oath but allowing him to reapply for admission to the Ohio 
bar and to sit for the bar exam a second time). 
{¶ 20} Here, like the misconduct at issue in Dabney, Callam’s misconduct 
is limited to his underlying unprofessional and criminal conduct and his failure to 
disclose that information in a forthright and complete manner in his applications to 
this court.  Although his lack of candor about these very serious matters is troubling, 
it appears that he has cooperated in the ensuing character and fitness investigation 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
and has shown some remorse for his poor judgment.  With time, he may be able to 
establish that he possesses the necessary qualifications for readmission to the 
practice of law in Ohio.  Therefore, we sustain Callam’s objection and will permit 
him to reapply for admission to the Ohio bar. 
{¶ 21} Accordingly, we revoke Callam’s license to practice law in Ohio 
effective immediately.  He may, however, reapply for admission after June 21, 
2019, by filing a new registration application, submitting to a background check by 
the National Conference of Bar Examiners and to a full character and fitness 
review, and successfully demonstrating that he possesses the requisite character, 
fitness, and moral qualifications to practice law in Ohio. 
Judgment accordingly. 
KENNEDY, FRENCH, O’NEILL, FISCHER, and DEWINE, JJ., concur. 
O’DONNELL, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined 
by O’CONNOR, C.J. 
_________________ 
O’DONNELL, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. 
{¶ 22} I concur in the court’s decision to revoke Michael Alexander 
Callam’s license to practice law in Ohio effectively immediately, but contrary to 
the majority, I would permanently preclude Callam from reapplying for admission 
to the practice of law in Ohio. 
{¶ 23} In In re Application of Swendiman, 146 Ohio St.3d 444, 2016-Ohio-
2813, 57 N.E.3d 1155, ¶ 13, this court stated: 
 
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 
January Term, 2017 
 
9
respect to the professional duties owed to them.”  Gov.Bar R. 
I(11)(D)(3).  “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. 
 
{¶ 24} “ ‘Evidence of false statements, including material omissions, and 
lack of candor in the admissions process reflect poorly on an applicant’s present 
character, fitness, and moral qualifications.’ ”  In re Application of Bagne, 102 Ohio 
St.3d 182, 2004-Ohio-2070, 808 N.E.2d 372, ¶ 23, quoting In re Application of 
Panepinto, 84 Ohio St.3d 397, 399, 704 N.E.2d 564 (1999).  And this court has 
recognized that “[a]n applicant whose honesty and integrity are intrinsically suspect 
cannot be admitted to the Ohio bar” and has permanently denied an applicant 
admission to the practice of law in Ohio on that basis.  In re Application of Aboyade, 
103 Ohio St.3d 318, 2004-Ohio-4773, 815 N.E.2d 383, ¶ 16. 
{¶ 25} Here, Callam obtained his law license by deceit.  A panel of the 
Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness concluded he failed to disclose 
“critical information” on his registration and bar exam applications and failed to 
discharge his continuing duty to update the information in his applications until he 
was admitted to the practice of law even after being reminded of that duty during 
an interview with members of the Akron Bar Association.  Specifically, he failed 
to disclose the Department of Insurance investigation involving him, the surrender 
of his insurance license for cause, a civil lawsuit filed by the insurance client whose 
complaint triggered the Department of Insurance investigation, and a civil lawsuit 
filed against him and several of his business entities in connection with the sale of 
his restaurant.  And as the majority recognizes, after hearing the evidence, the panel 
“was not convinced that Callam had remediated his past misconduct, and concluded 
that he ‘is open and truthful when he must be so, or when it benefits him.’ ”  
Majority opinion at ¶ 15, quoting the panel’s report. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
10 
{¶ 26} In my view, these facts demonstrate that Callam does not possess the 
character, fitness, and moral qualifications necessary for admission to the practice 
of law and that his honesty and integrity are intrinsically suspect.  Accordingly, I 
would adopt the board’s recommendation and revoke Callam’s license to practice 
law and permanently preclude him from reapplying for admission to the practice of 
law in Ohio. 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 
_________________ 
Mary L. Cibella, for applicant. 
Susan M. Fitch, for the Akron Bar Association. 
Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, L.L.P., and Damien C. Kitte, for the 
Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness. 
The Gertsburg Law Firm Co., L.P.A., and Alexander E. Gertsburg, for 
amicus curiae, the Gertsburg Law Firm Co., L.P.A, in support of applicant. 
_________________