Title: In re Application of Vanderhide

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 Vanderhide, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-866.] 
 
 
 
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. 2016-OHIO-866 
IN RE APPLICATION OF VANDERHIDE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as In re Application of Vanderhide, Slip Opinion No.  
2016-Ohio-866.] 
Attorneys—Application to register as a candidate for admission to the practice of 
law—Failure to appear for character-and-fitness hearing—Application 
denied; reapplication permitted. 
(No. 2015-1359—Submitted October 14, 2015—Decided March 10, 2016.) 
ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness of the 
Supreme Court, No. 618. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Applicant, Bradley Daniel Vanderhide, is a candidate for admission 
to the practice of law in Ohio.  The Board of Commissioners on Character and 
Fitness recommends that we disapprove his application because he failed to appear 
for proceedings intended to assess his character, fitness, and moral qualifications to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
practice law.  On review, we adopt the board’s recommendation to disapprove 
Vanderhide’s application. 
{¶ 2} Vanderhide initially applied to take the July 2014 bar examination.  
He sat for that exam but did not pass.  He subsequently applied to take the February 
2015 exam. 
{¶ 3} When the board reviewed Vanderhide’s application and the report of 
the National Conference of Bar Examiners (“NCBE”), it discovered that he had 
failed to disclose certain facts about his background, including a failed class in his 
final semester at Boston University and a period of probation for an in-dorm alcohol 
violation at Boston University.  When asked about these omissions, Vanderhide 
stated that his lack of disclosure was an oversight. 
{¶ 4} Of greater concern were two employment situations that Vanderhide 
failed to fully disclose.  The first involved Vanderhide’s work as a law clerk for 
Christian G. Montroy from June to October 2010.  While Montroy did not 
technically terminate his employment, a dispute arose when Vanderhide failed to 
timely submit a memo that was assigned to him.  Nine days after the memo was 
due, Montroy requested it and inquired whether Vanderhide had merely failed to 
timely submit the memo or whether he failed to timely complete the work.  Copies 
of the e-mail exchange Montroy submitted to the NCBE show that Vanderhide 
claimed to have timely prepared but forgotten to send a timely e-mail with the 
completed memo.  In a separate e-mail, Vanderhide claimed that a computer 
problem prevented him from providing metadata and other documentation that 
Montroy requested to evaluate the veracity of his explanation.  The panel of the 
Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness assigned to hear the case noted 
that those e-mails also call into question the veracity of Vanderhide’s claim that he 
was unaware of any dispute regarding his work.  Although Vanderhide obtained a 
law clerk position at another firm in June 2014, the board noted that that 
January Term, 2016 
 
3
employment appeared to have been terminated in September 2014 for deficient 
work product and untimely completion of projects. 
{¶ 5} The panel could not further develop the record on these issues because 
Vanderhide failed to appear for his June 9, 2015 panel hearing.  The panel report 
reflects that Vanderhide was aware of the hearing and that prior to adjourning the 
hearing, the panel attempted to contact him by phone, e-mail, and text message 
before adjourning.  Therefore, the panel found that Vanderhide failed to cooperate 
in the investigation and recommended that his application be disapproved.  The 
board adopted the panel’s recommendation. 
{¶ 6} Having reviewed the board’s report and the record, we agree that 
Vanderhide has not demonstrated the requisite character, fitness, and moral 
qualifications under Gov.Bar R. I(11) to be admitted to the bar.  His failure to 
appear for a hearing is sufficient grounds for disapproving his application.  See 
Gov.Bar R. I(12)(C)(6) (failure to fully cooperate in the character-and-fitness 
investigation may be grounds for a recommendation of disapproval). 
{¶ 7} We therefore accept the board’s recommendation to disapprove 
Vanderhide’s application.  Vanderhide may reapply for admission to the practice 
of law in Ohio by (1) filing an Application to Register as a Candidate for Admission 
to the Practice of Law and an Application to Take the Bar Examination, and (2) 
upon reapplication, undergoing a complete character-and-fitness investigation, 
including an investigation and report by the National Conference of Bar Examiners, 
in order to determine whether he possesses the requisite character, fitness, and 
moral qualifications for admission to the practice of law in Ohio.   
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and 
O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
LANZINGER, J., concurs in judgment only. 
_________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
Bradley Daniel Vanderhide, pro se. 
Murray & Black, Ltd., L.P.A., and Michael D. Murray, for the Lake County 
Bar Association. 
_________________