Title: In re Application of Sherman

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as In re Application of Sherman, 117 Ohio St.3d 528, 2008-Ohio-1472.] 
 
 
 
IN RE APPLICATION OF SHERMAN. 
[Cite as In re Application of Sherman, 117 Ohio St.3d 528, 2008-Ohio-1472.] 
Attorneys — Character and fitness — Applicant failed to appear for proceedings 
to complete character-and-fitness review — Applications to register as a 
candidate for admission to the bar and to take the bar examination 
disapproved. 
(No. 2007-1956 — Submitted January 9, 2008 — Decided April 3, 2008.) 
ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and  
Fitness of the Supreme Court, No. 346. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Applicant, Roderick Delvair Sherman, is a candidate for admission 
to the Ohio bar and has applied to take the Ohio bar examination.  The Board of 
Commissioners on Character and Fitness recommends that we disapprove, for 
now, his applications for admission and to take the bar exam because the 
applicant failed to appear for proceedings conducted to assess his character, 
fitness, and moral qualifications.  On review, we accept the board’s 
recommendation to disapprove and deny the applicant permission to reapply for 
any bar exam before the exam to be administered in February 2010. 
{¶ 2} The applicant first applied to take the February 2005 bar 
examination but failed to meet the requirements to sit for that test in time.  He 
then applied for the July 2005 bar exam.  Two members of the Joint Admissions 
Committee for the Cleveland and Cuyahoga County Bar Associations interviewed 
the applicant on May 24, 2005.  Both interviewers expressed misgivings about the 
applicant’s character, fitness, and moral qualifications, citing his excessive debt, 
criminal record, and erratic employment history. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 3} To allow the applicant the opportunity to allay concerns about his 
qualifications, the admissions committee scheduled another interview with two 
different members.  The applicant did not appear for the second interview.  When 
asked about his absence, the applicant claimed that he had not received notice of 
the second interview. 
{¶ 4} A representative of the admissions committee rescheduled the 
second interview for June 27, 2005, and e-mailed the applicant notice of the 
proceeding.  The representative received back an automatic e-mail indicating that 
the applicant was away from his computer and would “get in touch with [the 
sender] in the near future.” 
{¶ 5} The applicant did not appear at the appointed date and time for the 
second interview.  When the applicant did not show, one of the interviewers 
called the applicant’s cell phone, which the applicant answered.  The interviewer 
identified herself and asked the applicant whether he was planning to attend the 
interview.  Apparently because the applicant realized the purpose of the call, he 
claimed that he could not hear the caller and hung up.  The interviewer 
immediately called back, but her call was diverted to the applicant’s voicemail.  
The interviewer left a message asking the applicant to return her call, but he never 
did. 
{¶ 6} Having nothing on which to rely for recommending the applicant’s 
character, fitness, and moral qualifications, the admissions committee registered 
its final disapproval on July 1, 2005.  Over the next six months, this court’s Office 
of Bar Admissions repeatedly sent the applicant certified letters advising him of 
the admissions committee’s disapproval and his right to appeal within 30 days.  
All the certified mailings went unclaimed. 
{¶ 7} Shortly before the July 2005 bar exam, the bar admissions office 
sent a notice to the applicant that he would not be permitted to sit for the exam 
because the office had not received final approval of his character and fitness or a 
January Term, 2008 
3 
certificate establishing that he had taken necessary training in preventing 
substance abuse.  The applicant evidently received this notice, because in 
November 2005 he reapplied to take the February 2006 bar exam.  He did not 
submit the requisite training certificate, however, until May 15, 2006. 
{¶ 8} In June 2006, the bar admissions office finally reached the 
applicant by telephone and confirmed that the address on file for him was correct.  
On July 3, 2006, the bar admissions office resent by regular mail a packet 
containing the letter notifying him of the admissions committee’s previous 
disapproval of his applications and the time for appeal and a copy of the 
committee’s recommendation.  The applicant filed a timely appeal. 
{¶ 9} A panel appointed by the board convened to hear the applicant’s 
appeal on March 29, 2007.  The applicant again failed to appear.  The panel 
chairman proceeded by telephoning the applicant and, after asking him to testify 
on the record, inquiring into his absence from the hearing.  In response, the 
applicant once more claimed that he had not received notice of the proceeding. 
{¶ 10} Neither the panel nor the board believed the applicant’s 
explanation for his failure to appear.  The bar admissions office had sent notice of 
the proceeding to the address that staff had confirmed to be his and the notice had 
not been returned as undeliverable.  The panel and board concluded from a staff 
member’s testimony and the applicant’s track record that the applicant had simply 
disregarded notices of proceedings and other developments in the process to 
assess his character and fitness. 
{¶ 11} Rosey Smith, Bar Admissions Coordinator, testified that after 
repeated attempts had been made to contact the applicant at the telephone number 
on file for him, she was the one who reached him in June 2006.  During their 
conversation, the applicant had confirmed his address as the one in Shaker 
Heights to which the certified letters advising of the admissions committee’s 
disapproval and appeal period had been sent.  Smith further testified that the bar 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
admissions office had sent notice of the March 29 hearing, which was scheduled 
on February 7, 2007, to the Shaker Heights address.  In fact, Smith recalled 
having had another conversation with the applicant two weeks before the panel 
hearing, when she again confirmed his address and even reminded him of the 
impending hearing date. 
{¶ 12} The panel and board found Smith’s testimony far more credible 
than the applicant’s claim that he knew nothing of the panel hearing, and so do 
we.  As the board aptly summarized and surmised from the evidence: 
{¶ 13} “The applicant was sent notice of the panel hearing on February 
12, 2007 at his current confirmed address.  Approximately two (2) weeks prior to 
the panel hearing, the applicant orally acknowledged to Rosey Smith that he was 
aware of the date of the hearing.  He acknowledges he received his other mail 
during this time period at the same address, and further acknowledges he does not 
seem to have difficulty in receiving any of his other mail.  However, with no 
attempt to explain how he could not have received notice, the applicant merely 
states that he had no knowledge of the hearing and that is why he failed to appear.  
In light of his repeated failure to appear for, or acknowledge, the scheduled 
interview times set by the Joint Admissions Committee, the Board does not find 
the applicant’s claims to be credible.” 
{¶ 14} Gov.Bar R. I(12)(C)(6) requires an applicant for admission to the 
practice of law to establish his or her present character, fitness, and moral 
qualifications by clear and convincing evidence.  Requiring the applicant’s 
forthright, conscientious participation in proceedings before the board, the rule 
further provides that an applicant’s “failure to provide requested information * * * 
or otherwise to cooperate in proceedings before the Board may be grounds for a 
recommendation of disapproval.”  Having failed to appear for proceedings to 
complete the character-and-fitness-review process, the applicant is unable to 
sustain his burden of proof and show that he is now qualified for bar admission. 
January Term, 2008 
5 
{¶ 15} We therefore accept the board’s recommendation to disapprove 
this applicant’s applications to take the bar exam and for admission to the practice 
of law in Ohio.  The applicant may reapply for the bar examination to be 
administered in February 2010, providing that he complete the entire admission 
process, including (1) filing a new application to register as a candidate for 
admission to the practice of law and an application to take the bar examination 
and (2) undergoing the character-and-fitness-review process, including the 
interview by members of an appropriate bar association and obtaining a report 
from the National Conference of Bar Examiners. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Justin F. Madden, for relator. 
______________________