Title: In re Application of Corrigan

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as In 
re Application of Corrigan, Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-4183.] 
 
 
 
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. 2009-OHIO-4183 
IN RE APPLICATION OF CORRIGAN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as In re Application of Corrigan,  
Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-4183.] 
Attorneys — Character and fitness — Employment instability, criminal history, 
alcohol abuse, and acts involving dishonesty or deceit — Application 
disapproved, with permission to reapply on conditions. 
(No. 2009-0510 — Submitted May 19, 2009 — Decided August 26, 2009.) 
ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and 
Fitness of the Supreme Court, No. 393. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} John Francis Corrigan of Eastlake, 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, at this 
time, we disapprove his character, fitness, and moral qualifications, citing his lack 
of maturity, employment instability, criminal history, his ambivalence toward 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
alcohol rehabilitation, and acts involving dishonesty or deceit.  The board further 
recommends that we permit him to reapply for a future bar exam after he provides 
the board with (1) a psychiatric evaluation from a psychiatrist or psychologist 
licensed in the state of Ohio and approved by the board and (2) an assessment 
from an alcohol counselor certified in the state of Ohio.  For the reasons that 
follow, we accept the board’s recommendations. 
Summary of Proceedings 
{¶ 2} The applicant graduated from Cleveland-Marshall College of Law 
in May 2007.  He registered as a candidate for admission to the Ohio bar in June 
2007 and subsequently applied to take the February 2008 bar examination. 
{¶ 3} Members of the Joint Admissions Committee of the Cleveland and 
Cuyahoga County Bar Associations interviewed him pursuant to Gov.Bar R. 
I(11)(C)(3), but disapproved of his character, fitness, and moral qualifications for 
the practice of law.  At the applicant’s request, the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar 
Association’s Admissions Appeals Committee conducted a hearing on that 
disapproval, but voted unanimously to deny his appeal. 
{¶ 4} Pursuant to Gov.Bar R.  I(11)(D)(5)(a), which requires review by 
the board when an applicant has been convicted of a felony, and on the 
applicant’s notice of appeal (see Gov.Bar R. I(12)(C)), a three-member panel of 
the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness conducted a hearing in 
January 2009.  After hearing the testimony of applicant and his girlfriend, the 
panel recommended that the board disapprove the application.  The full board 
accepted the panel’s recommendation and disapproved the application on 
February 6, 2009. 
{¶ 5} The panel and board identified three areas of concern that justified 
disqualification: (1) the applicant’s employment instability, including his 
departure from the Medina County Public Defender’s Office, (2) his criminal 
history, and (3) his ambivalence toward alcohol rehabilitation. 
January Term, 2009 
3 
 
Employment 
{¶ 6} The panel and board determined that the applicant, who is now 32 
years old, held “in excess of” 17 jobs between the ages of 20 and 30.  Many of 
those were food-service positions that lasted only a few months.  The applicant 
stated that he left a number of jobs because he did not like the work or the job just 
“did not work out.”  His longest terms of steady employment were his part-time 
jobs as a library assistant at the Cleveland State University library from January 
2003 to May 2007, and as a law clerk with O’Shea & Associates from June 2006 
to March 2008.  The panel and board noted that the applicant’s employment 
history demonstrated a lack of maturity. 
{¶ 7} Both the panel and the board expressed concern regarding the 
applicant’s “vague departure” from a job he held at the Medina County Public 
Defender’s Office for a six week period in July and August 2005.  It appears that 
his termination arose from allegations that he had falsified a timecard.  However, 
the applicant attempted to attribute his departure to his hour-long commute, the 
imminent start of school, and the fact that the job “just never really worked out,” 
and noted that he and the public defender reached a “mutual agreement” to 
terminate his employment.  He further suggested that the timecard allegation was 
a mere pretext for terminating him, when the real reason was his criminal 
convictions.  A representative from the public defender’s office confirmed the 
mutuality of the termination and added that the applicant would not be rehired. 
Criminal Record 
{¶ 8} The panel and the board also expressed concern about the 
applicant’s criminal history.  While noting multiple arrests between 1996 and 
2001 for minor incidents involving alcohol abuse, the panel and board focused 
upon two more serious incidents that occurred in 1996 and 1997. 
{¶ 9} In December 1996, the applicant was arrested for an open-
container violation and subsequently charged with disorderly conduct after he 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
physically and verbally abused the arresting officers.  Then, in May 1997, the 
applicant was arrested for DUI, fleeing the scene of an accident, and failing to 
maintain the assured clear distance, after he struck a vehicle from behind and 
attempted to leave the scene.  During that arrest, he assaulted two police officers, 
which resulted in additional charges of felonious assault and assault on a peace 
officer.  The applicant pleaded guilty to DUI, felonious assault, and two counts of 
assault on a peace officer and received an aggregate three-year prison sentence.  
Subsequently the court modified his sentence to five years of community control, 
which he completed in March 2001.  His insurance company also settled a tort 
action arising out of his drunk driving for $35,000 in 1999. 
Alcohol Rehabilitation 
{¶ 10} As the panel and board noted, the applicant stated that he had 
attended approximately 500 Alcoholics Anonymous meetings while serving his 
community control, although he admitted to drinking occasionally and moderately 
at the time of his hearing.  In his brief, he expressed his objections to OLAP and 
12-step programs, criticizing their spiritual base and their focus on alcoholism as 
a disease, expressing his view of alcoholism as a behavior problem.  During the 
pendency of his application, he initiated a meeting with Paul Caimi at OLAP, but 
decided that the program was not appropriate for him.  In hindsight, he indicated 
that he regretted the meeting because he believed that it cast additional scrutiny 
on his past behavior, which he contends is no longer an issue for him.  Although 
he attended three counseling sessions at Cleveland State in 2005, he was 
terminated from the program after he missed a session and failed to respond to the 
counseling center’s inquiries.  The counselor’s termination summary stated:  
“Clnt [sic] was able to examine the root of his negative thinking, but still had 
probs [sic] staying grounded in the present.” 
Disposition 
January Term, 2009 
5 
 
{¶ 11} An applicant for admission to the Ohio bar has the burden to 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).  To be approved, 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).  Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3) and (4) provide 
nonexhaustive lists of factors that the admissions committee and the board must 
consider before making a recommendation about an applicant’s character, fitness, 
and moral qualifications. 
{¶ 12} Having considered those factors, the panel and the board cited 
“[t]he Applicant’s pattern of traffic violations and criminal conduct, the evidence 
of a prior alcohol dependency and an ambivalence toward rehabilitation, evidence 
of a possible mental or psychological disorder that inhibited his ability to hold 
employment for a period of time, and acts involving dishonesty or deceit, 
particularly with regard to his employment at the Medina County Public 
Defender’s Office,”  and his evasive answers to questions at the hearing, to 
support the conclusion that the applicant failed to meet his burden.  The record 
supports this conclusion. 
{¶ 13} “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.”  Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3).  Here, the record 
demonstrates that the applicant gave evasive answers to questions at the hearing 
and that his termination from the Medina County Public Defender’s Office was 
likely related to allegations that he falsified his timecard. 
{¶ 14} Additionally, “[e]vidence of mental or psychological disorder that 
in any way affects or, if untreated, could affect the applicant’s ability to practice 
law in a competent and professional manner” weighs against admission to the 
practice of law in Ohio.  Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3)(e).  See also In re Application of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
Dickens, 106 Ohio St.3d 128, 2005-Ohio-4097, 832 N.E.2d 725 (disapproving the 
application of an applicant who, among other problems, gave bizarre and 
incoherent testimony that the panel believed could be evidence of an untreated 
mental or psychological condition).  Here the panel and board found that the 
applicant’s inability to hold employment for a period of time was evidence of a 
possible mental or psychological disorder that could impair the applicant’s ability 
to practice law. 
{¶ 15} Additionally, the applicant’s pattern of disregard for the laws of 
this state and his dishonesty or deceit with respect to his termination from the 
Medina County Public Defender’s Office call into question his claims that his 
record justifies the trust of clients, adversaries, courts, and others.  Gov.Bar R. 
I(11)(D)(3)(f) and (i);  Dickens at ¶ 15, citing In re Application of 
VanDenBossche (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 158, 160-161, 724 N.E.2d 405 (applicant’s 
criminal record and inability to explain recent charges reflected lack of present 
fitness to practice law); and In re Application of Kapel (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 532, 
651 N.E.2d 955 (applicant’s disorderly-conduct conviction and repeated traffic 
violations, including speeding, demonstrated that the applicant lacked the 
requisite character and fitness for the practice of law). 
{¶ 16} Also, “[e]vidence of an existing and untreated chemical (drug or 
alcohol) dependency” is another factor weighing against admission to the practice 
of law in Ohio.  Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3)(b).  Here, there is no finding by the board 
that the applicant is currently dependent on alcohol.  However, the board found 
that his past dependency, his admission that he continues to drink occasionally, 
and his ambivalence toward or resistance to rehabilitation warrant further 
consideration of whether the applicant has an existing and untreated alcohol 
dependency that could affect his ability to practice law. 
{¶ 17} On review, we adopt the board’s findings as to the applicant’s 
character and fitness and its recommendation to disapprove his pending 
January Term, 2009 
7 
 
application to take the February 2008 bar examination.  He may reapply in 
accordance with Gov.Bar R. I(3) to take a future bar examination.  However, in 
reapplying, the applicant must first submit to the board a psychiatric evaluation 
from a psychiatrist or psychologist approved by the board and licensed in the state 
of Ohio, as well as an assessment from an alcohol counselor certified in the state 
of Ohio, and demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he possesses the 
requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to the practice 
of law. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
John F. Corrigan, pro se. 
 
George W. MacDonald, for the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association. 
______________________