Case Title: In re Application of Rogers

Citation: 2008-Ohio-3191

Docket Number: 20080805

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2008-07-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Application of Rogers, 119 Ohio St.3d 43, 2008-Ohio-3191.] 
 
 
 
IN RE APPLICATION OF ROGERS. 
[Cite as In re Application of Rogers, 119 Ohio St.3d 43, 2008-Ohio-3191.] 
Attorneys at law—Character-and-fitness review—Permission to take July 2008 
bar examination denied. 
(No. 2008-0805 — Submitted June 4, 2008 — Decided July 3, 2008.) 
ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and  
Fitness of the Supreme Court, No. 351. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Applicant, Kevin Vaughn Rogers Jr. of Sandusky, Ohio, has 
applied to take the February 2007, July 2007, and February 2008 Ohio bar 
examinations.  Because of the applicant’s poor credit record and history of 
criminal and other transgressions, the Board of Commissioners on Character and 
Fitness recommends that we disapprove his character, fitness, and moral 
qualifications and then allow him to reapply for the July 2008 bar exam.  We 
accept the board’s recommendation to disapprove; however, because we continue 
to have reservations about the applicant’s integrity and maturity, we will not 
allow the applicant to apply for the July 2008 bar examination. 
{¶ 2} The applicant registered as a candidate for admission to the Ohio 
bar in August 2006.  After his first application to take the bar exam, members of 
the Erie County Bar Association Admissions Committee interviewed him 
pursuant to Gov.Bar R. I(11)(C)(3) but did not give their unqualified approval of 
his character, fitness, and moral qualifications.  On the applicant’s appeal, see 
Gov.Bar R. I(12)(C), a three-member panel of the board heard the case and 
recommended against the applicant’s immediate approval, but also recommended 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
that he be permitted to reapply for the July 2008 bar exam on conditions.  The 
board adopted the panel’s findings and recommendation. 
{¶ 3} Since the board filed its report in this court, the parties have 
stipulated to the board’s findings and recommendation, waived oral argument, and 
asked for our expedited disposition.  We deny the motion to expedite but accept 
the stipulations. 
I.  Summary of Panel and Board Findings 
{¶ 4} The panel conducted hearings on June 29 and October 9, 2007.  In 
adopting the panel’s report, the board identified two areas of concern about the 
applicant’s past.  The first was the applicant’s poor credit history; the second was 
the applicant’s criminal record and other transgressions. 
A.  The Applicant’s Credit Problems 
{¶ 5} Without going into unnecessary detail, we note that the applicant, 
who is now in his late twenties, has had credit card debt going back to his college 
years.  In his second year of law school, however, he obtained employment, and 
since then has tried to locate creditors and pay off the debts he incurred over the 
years.  He has not been entirely successful, and his interviewers for the bar 
admissions committee were less than impressed with his efforts. 
{¶ 6} The board concluded that the applicant’s credit history warranted 
initial disapproval of his character, fitness, and moral qualifications but should not 
preclude him from reapplying for the July 2008 bar exam.  The board explained: 
{¶ 7} “Regarding the applicant’s unpaid debt, the fact that many of the 
debts were old and unpaid was of greater concern than the total amount of the 
debt.  The panel concurred with the interviewers that the applicant seemed to 
dance around the reasons the debts were not paid and the efforts he had made to 
pay them.  On the other hand it is to his credit that he has made some effort to pay 
some of the debts even though they were charged off.” 
B.  The Applicant’s Criminal Record and Other Transgressions 
January Term, 2008 
3 
1.  Criminal Record 
{¶ 8} In addition to two minor traffic violations, the applicant’s criminal 
record includes a charge for driving under the influence of alcohol, which was 
ultimately dismissed.  The applicant, who was 19 years old at the time, had been 
to a rock concert in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, before which he had consumed as 
many as 12 beers.  He was stopped at 2:00 a.m. while trying to drive back to 
Sandusky, Ohio.  The applicant disclosed this incident in his application 
materials, but because his breath-alcohol level was still .106 supposedly six hours 
after his last drink, the admissions committee interviewers suspected his candor as 
to when and how much he had actually had to drink. 
{¶ 9} The board concluded that this drunk-driving charge warranted 
initial disapproval of the applicant’s qualifications but should not preclude him 
from reapplying for the July 2008 bar exam.  The board explained: 
{¶ 10} “His explanation regarding the interviewers’ impression was that 
he probably badly articulated what happened that night, leading to the 
inconsistency between how many beers he may have drunk and when he drank 
them.  He also claimed that, regardless of how much he did or did not have to 
drink, he does not view the issue as how much he had to drink but the fact is that 
he drank intending to drive home and should not have.  He admitted he was in the 
wrong state of mind and acknowledged it.  His [remark] about the incident being 
a special event was the fact that it occurred on the Fourth of July.  He said that 
this was not an excuse to drink or to explain his bad behavior but rather an effort 
to explain to the admissions committee that this was a one-time event and not 
something that has occurred over and over again.  The fact that this may have 
been a one-time incident is borne out by the reports from the police departments 
in [his application materials] which indicate no other arrests for any other drug or 
alcohol–related incidents.” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 11} Also a part of the applicant’s criminal record is the fact that he 
pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor charge of sexual imposition and completed a 
diversion program in lieu of conviction.  The incident that led to this charge 
occurred when the applicant, then 18 years old, went with two female co-workers 
to their apartment after drinks with a larger group.  The applicant disclosed this 
incident and the charge in his application materials, but the admissions committee 
interviewers worried that he did not fully acknowledge or appreciate the gravity 
of his wrongdoing. 
{¶ 12} The board again concluded that the improprieties of this situation 
warranted initial disapproval but should not preclude the applicant from 
reapplying for the July 2008 bar exam.  The board explained: 
{¶ 13} “It should be noted that he did not contest any evidence leading to 
the finding of guilt on his no contest plea to the misdemeanor and waived 
presenting evidence.  He did claim to take full responsibility for bad judgment.  
He said it was bad judgment on his part to go to that room, to try to fool around 
with two girls, and to put himself in that position.  He pointed out that * * * there 
have been no further arrests (other than the OVI) in the 7 years since this incident, 
during which time he has been to college and law school. 
{¶ 14} “The applicant was admitted to law school despite this incident.  
He disclosed to the law school the same information he disclosed on his 
admissions application.  The law school, as per its policy, put him on immediate 
disciplinary probation, meaning if he made one mistake he would be discharged.  
He graduated from law school in the top 15% of his class.” 
2.  Other Transgressions 
{¶ 15} Again without going into unnecessary detail, we note that the 
applicant has shown signs of being unable to appropriately manage his behavior 
in certain situations.  In several instances brought to the board’s attention, the 
applicant victimized a woman with conduct ranging from loutish to threatening in 
January Term, 2008 
5 
apparent attempts to keep or regain her affection.  In one incident, the applicant 
went to the woman’s apartment at 4:00 a.m. and pounded on her door for 20 
minutes while spewing epithets.  In another incident, the applicant threw a half-
filled can of beer at the woman and had to be escorted away.  The applicant also 
once damaged the woman’s window blinds in a fit of anger. 
{¶ 16} Despite the applicant’s volatility toward her, the woman testified 
that she has never been afraid of him, harbored no ill-will, and believed that he 
would be a good lawyer.  The panel expressed concern about the applicant’s 
tendency to deny and evade responsibility for his violent reactions, and the board 
shared that sentiment.  Both the panel and the board concluded, however, that the 
applicant should still have the opportunity to reapply for the July 2008 bar exam. 
II.  Disposition 
{¶ 17} 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 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. 
{¶ 18} The panel, board, and the parties agree that the applicant should be 
permitted to reapply to take the July 2008 bar exam.  Respondent, however, has 
demonstrated two of the specified disqualifying characteristics for bar admission.  
He has shown some reluctance to be forthcoming about elements of his past, and 
he has neglected financial responsibilities.  See Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3)(g) and 
(k).  Moreover, though years ago, respondent has serious wrongdoing in his past, 
as shown by the charges of DUI and sexual imposition.  See Gov.Bar R. 
I(11)(D)(3)(f). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
{¶ 19} For these reasons, we continue to have misgivings about the 
applicant’s worthiness for admission to the practice of law.  Thus, rather than 
allow him to immediately reapply for the bar exam, we are allowing him more 
time to show improvement in the areas of candor, financial responsibility, and 
lawful conduct.  We therefore disapprove, for now, the applicant’s character, 
fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to the Ohio bar; however, he may 
reapply, in accordance with Gov.Bar R. I(3), to take the bar examination to be 
administered in February 2009.  In reapplying, the applicant must receive the 
unqualified approval of the Erie County Bar Association Admissions Committee. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Kevin Vaughn Rogers Jr., pro se 
Murray & Murray Co., L.P.A., and James L. Murray, for the Erie County 
Bar Association. 
______________________