Title: In re Application of Zimmerman

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 Zimmerman, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5644.] 
 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-5644 
IN RE APPLICATION OF ZIMMERMAN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as In re Application of Zimmerman,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5644.] 
(No. 2012-0428—Submitted May 9, 2012—Decided December 5, 2012.) 
ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and 
Fitness of the Supreme Court, No. 518. 
___________________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Brenda Michelle Zimmerman of Dayton, Ohio, is a 2011 graduate 
of the University of Dayton School of Law and has applied as a candidate for 
admission to the bar.  On the recommendation of the admissions committee of the 
Dayton Bar Association, the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness 
approved Zimmerman’s character and fitness and permitted her to take the July 
2011 bar exam.  Zimmerman did not pass the bar exam, and based on her 
unresponsive answers to the bar exam questions, the Board of Bar Examiners 
expressed concern about her fitness to practice law. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness exercised 
its power to sua sponte investigate Zimmerman’s character, fitness, and moral 
qualifications.  See Gov.Bar R. I(10)(B)(2)(e).  Having reviewed Zimmerman’s 
bar exam answers and heard her testimony, a panel of the board recommended 
that her character, fitness, and moral qualifications be disapproved, but that she be 
permitted to reapply for the July 2013 bar exam.  The panel would condition her 
ability to reapply on her submission to a mental health evaluation by a licensed 
psychiatrist or psychologist selected by the board, demonstration of a period of 
sustained compliance with any treatment recommendations, submission of a new 
application to register as a candidate for admission to the practice of law, and 
completion of a new character and fitness examination, including a new National 
Conference of Bar Examiners (“NCBE”) background investigation. 
{¶ 3} The 
board 
adopted 
the 
panel’s 
findings 
of 
facts 
and 
recommendations.  We, in turn, adopt the board’s findings of fact and 
recommendations, but will not permit Zimmerman to reapply until the July 2014 
bar exam. 
Summary of the Proceedings 
{¶ 4} Zimmerman did not pass the July 2011 bar exam because her 
answers were not responsive to the questions.  Instead of analyzing the fact 
patterns presented in the exam, Zimmerman expounded upon God, her religion, 
and her belief that the United States and the legal system have strayed from the 
laws of God and defiled his name. 
{¶ 5} At the hearing, Zimmerman testified that she no longer wants to 
practice law.  She stated that law school had opened her eyes and made her realize 
that law is not a good career choice for her.  She indicated that she does not like 
the way that the country is being run, and expressed great displeasure with the 
decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Kelo v. City of New 
London, 545 U.S. 469, 125 S.Ct. 2655, 162 L.Ed.2d 439 (2005), which allowed a 
January Term, 2012 
 
3
city to take private property by eminent domain for economic development 
purposes. 
{¶ 6} Zimmerman testified that she is currently unemployed, and has 
approximately $223,000 in student loans that she cannot pay.  She acknowledged 
that she had spoken to the dean of her law school, who recommended she seek 
help from the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”), but stated that the 
thought of talking to someone at OLAP scared her.  Her testimony was rambling 
at times, touching on random issues like cloud seeding, biological-warfare testing 
that has been performed on this country’s military personnel, the Bay of Pigs 
invasion, and the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin 
Luther King, Jr. 
{¶ 7} When Zimmerman was asked if she was, or had ever been, on 
medication, she indicated that she does not take any medications.  Though she 
admitted that a counselor had once prescribed Paxil and Trazodone, she reported 
that she did not like it and stopped taking it after one week because, “No one 
needs a permanent smile on their face that hurts.”  She did not feel that a past 
counseling effort had been helpful, and indicated that she has deeply buried 
childhood trauma that should remain buried. 
{¶ 8} Zimmerman reported that she had never before answered exam 
questions in the manner that she answered her bar exam questions.  She said that 
either the night before or the morning of the exam, the signs were there and led 
her to answer the questions in that manner, and that this was the first time she had 
“put God down on a piece of paper.”  She reported that she prayed very hard and 
tried to communicate with God and Jesus because she did not want to write these 
answers and throw away the time and effort that she had put into law school, but 
that the Lord forbade her to practice law. 
{¶ 9} The panel expressed sympathy for Zimmerman’s long-held desire 
to practice law and the struggles that she endured to obtain her undergraduate, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
masters, and law degrees, but recognized that her mental health issues and her 
attitude are huge obstacles in her path.  Although they recommend that we 
disapprove her pending application, they recognized that Zimmerman may one 
day be able to demonstrate that she possesses the requisite character, fitness, and 
moral qualifications to practice law.  Therefore, they recommend that she be 
permitted to reapply for the July 2013 or a later bar exam, provided that she 
submits to a mental health evaluation by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist 
selected by the board, demonstrates a period of sustained compliance with any 
treatment recommendations, submits to a new application to register as a 
candidate for admission to the practice of law, and completes a new character and 
fitness examination, including an NCBE background investigation. 
Disposition 
{¶ 10} 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). 
{¶ 11} 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 concerning an applicant’s character, fitness, and moral 
qualifications.  Among the factors to be considered is whether there is “[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 
matter.”  Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3)(e). 
{¶ 12} Zimmerman’s performance on the July 2011 bar exam and her 
testimony at the panel hearing are some evidence that a mental or psychological 
disorder is present.  Her inability to analyze and cogently address the bar exam 
questions to further her own career objectives raise serious issues about her ability 
January Term, 2012 
 
5
to analyze her client’s problems, research the applicable law, and advocate for her 
client’s in a competent and professional manner.  Therefore, we adopt the board’s 
finding that Zimmerman has failed to prove that she currently possesses the 
requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to the practice 
of law in Ohio, as well as the recommendation that we disapprove her pending 
application. 
{¶ 13} However, we believe that allowing Zimmerman to reapply for the 
July 2013 bar exam will not allow her sufficient time to obtain a mental-health 
evaluation and demonstrate a period of sustained compliance with treatment 
recommendations.  We will, however, permit Zimmerman to reapply for the July 
2014 bar examination. 
{¶ 14} Accordingly,  we disapprove Zimmerman’s pending application 
and will permit her to reapply for the July 2014 or a later bar exam, provided that 
she submits to a mental-health evaluation by a licensed psychiatrist or 
psychologist selected by the board, demonstrates a period of sustained compliance 
with any treatment recommendations, submits to a new application to register as a 
candidate for admission to the practice of law, and completes a new character and 
fitness examination, including an NCBE background investigation. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
________________________ 
Brenda Michelle Zimmerman, pro se applicant. 
Faruki, Ireland & Cox, P.L.L., and James W. Pauley III, for the Dayton 
Bar Association. 
_________________________