Title: In re Application of Wessel

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as In re Application of Wessel, 94 Ohio St.3d 212, 2002-Ohio-636.] 
 
 
IN RE APPLICATION OF WESSEL. 
[Cite as In re Application of Wessel (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 212.] 
Attorneys at law — Application to take Ohio Bar Examination denied when 
applicant fails to demonstrate his character and fitness for admission to 
practice law by clear and convincing evidence as required by Gov.Bar 
R. I(12)(C)(6) — Applicant permanently denied right to apply for 
admission to bar of Ohio. 
(No. 01-1240 — Submitted September 19, 2001 — Decided January 30, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT of the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness 
of the Supreme Court, No. 185. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. On April 30, 1999, a panel of the Board of Commissioners 
on Character and Fitness heard the appeal of applicant, Peter N. Wessel, from the 
report of the Admissions Committee of the Cincinnati Bar Association 
disapproving his application for admission to the practice of law in Ohio. 
 
As a result of evidence introduced at the hearing, the panel found that 
although most of applicant’s history of criminal convictions and arrests concerned 
events more than ten years old at the time of the hearing, he had not disclosed 
these matters when he previously applied for insurance licenses in Ohio, Florida, 
and Arizona.  Nor had he disclosed them in his application for admission to the 
University of Cincinnati College of Law. 
 
During the hearing, the panel heard compound-hearsay allegations that 
applicant had threatened physical violence against certain persons if any should 
provide information that would hinder his acceptance as a candidate for admission 
to the bar.  After the hearing, the local admissions committee reported that 
applicant had been arrested for possession of cocaine and also charged with 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
domestic violence and a traffic offense.  The panel chair wrote to applicant 
requesting that he supply information about these additional matters.  Applicant 
did not respond to these inquiries. 
 
The panel concluded that the applicant had failed to supplement his 
application as required by Gov.Bar R. I(2)(F) (an applicant for admission to the 
bar of Ohio is under a continuing duty to update the information in his application 
to take the bar examination) and had not demonstrated his character and fitness 
for admission to the practice of law by clear and convincing evidence as required 
by Gov.Bar R. I(12)(C)(6).  It recommended that his pending application to take 
the bar examination not be approved and that any further application procedure 
should start from the beginning.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the panel. 
 
Upon review of the record in this matter we adopt the findings and 
conclusions of the board, but find that applicant should be permanently denied the 
right to apply for admission to the bar of Ohio.  Costs are taxed to applicant. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Raymond W. Lembke, for Cincinnati Bar Association. 
 
Peter N. Wessel, pro se. 
__________________