Title: In re Application of Zatik

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 Zatik, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-3828.] 
 
 
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. 2010-OHIO-3828 
IN RE APPLICATION OF ZATIK. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as In re Application of Zatik, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-3828.] 
Attorneys — Character and fitness — Application to register as a candidate for 
admission to the bar — Failure to timely disclose prior misdemeanor 
convictions and juvenile adjudication — Application disapproved, with 
permission to reapply. 
(No. 2010-0355 — Submitted April 20, 2010 — Decided August 25, 2010.) 
ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and 
Fitness of the Supreme Court, No. 425. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Alexander Johnathin Zatik of Toledo, Ohio, has applied to register 
as a candidate for admission to the Ohio bar, although he has not yet filed an 
application to take the bar examination.  Citing the applicant’s failure to timely 
disclose an adjudication of juvenile delinquency and two misdemeanor 
convictions in his law-school application, as well as his subsequent failure to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
disclose that omission in his application to register as a candidate for the bar, the 
Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness recommends that we 
disapprove his character, fitness, and moral qualifications, at present, and that we 
permit the applicant to apply for the July 2012 bar exam.  We accept the board’s 
recommendation to disapprove the pending application and will allow the 
applicant to apply for the July 2012 bar exam, provided that he first submit a new 
and complete application to register as a candidate for admission to the practice of 
law. 
Summary of Proceedings 
{¶ 2} The applicant completed his application to register as a candidate 
for admission to the Ohio bar on November 10, 2008, and the Bar Admissions 
Office received it on November 12, 2008.  In that application, he answered the 
question, “Have you ever failed to answer fully and truthfully all questions on an 
application for admission to any educational institution?” in the negative. 
{¶ 3} In accordance with Gov.Bar R. I(11)(C)(3) and (D)(1), two 
members of the Toledo Bar Association’s admissions committee interviewed the 
applicant on April 20, 2009, to ascertain whether he possessed the requisite 
character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to the practice of law.  
When the interviewers asked him whether any answer on his character 
questionnaire should be changed or supplemented, the applicant provided greater 
detail about a juvenile-delinquency adjudication for residential burglary, two 
misdemeanor convictions for underage alcohol possession, and his use of false 
identification to purchase alcohol.  He had disclosed all of this information in his 
application for admission to the bar, but he also revealed, for the first time, that he 
had failed to disclose those incidents in his application for admission to the 
University of Toledo College of Law, contrary to his statement that he had been 
truthful on his law school application.  Based upon these disclosures, the 
interviewers stated that they were uncertain whether he possessed the requisite 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to the practice of law 
and recommended further screening by the admissions committee. 
{¶ 4} A seven-member panel of the admissions committee later 
convened to review the applicant’s application and recommended that it be 
approved with qualifications, based upon the applicant’s (1) failure to disclose his 
prior criminal convictions in his application to the University of Toledo College 
of Law, despite his acknowledgement that he had divulged the offenses in his 
applications to several other schools, (2) limited disclosure of his alcohol-related 
offenses to the University of Toledo in September or October 2007, and (3) 
failure to disclose to the school his adjudication as a juvenile for burglary until 
after his initial character-and-fitness interview.  The panel unanimously found that 
the applicant “does not currently demonstrate the ability to exercise good 
judgment in his professional affairs, nor the ability to conduct himself with a high 
degree of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness in his professional relationships 
and with respect to all legal obligations.”  Accordingly, the bar-admissions 
committee recommended that the applicant be required to wait two years beyond 
his law-school graduation date before being permitted to apply for the Ohio bar 
examination. 
{¶ 5} The applicant appealed the panel’s qualified approval pursuant to 
Gov.Bar R. I(12), and a three-member panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Character and Fitness conducted a hearing to inquire into his character, fitness, 
and moral qualifications.  See Gov.Bar R. I(12)(C). 
Disposition 
{¶ 6} 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).  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
Necessarily, “[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.”  Id. 
{¶ 7} In determining that the applicant had not proven that he possessed 
the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications, the board considered the 
factors set forth in Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3) and (4).  The board expressed concern 
about the applicant’s lack of candor both in disclosing his past crimes and in 
explaining his reasons for failing to disclose them.  We accept the board’s 
findings of fact with respect to these events and conclude that the applicant (1) 
violated his law school’s code of student professional conduct, (2) failed to timely 
provide complete and accurate information regarding his past conduct, and (3) 
made false statements or omissions in the completion of his application as a 
candidate for admission to the bar.  See Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3)(d), (g), and (h). 
{¶ 8} In establishing the weight and significance of the applicant’s 
conduct, the board noted that the applicant had not been candid in his disclosure 
to the University of Toledo College of Law, in his interviews with the admissions 
committee, or in his testimony before the board.  Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(4)(i).  
Although the board recognized that the applicant’s criminal convictions and 
juvenile adjudication, which occurred while he was in his teens, were not likely to 
interfere with his admission to the bar, it concluded that respondent needed a 
“period of maturation” to develop the honesty, trustworthiness, and reliability 
necessary for successful admission to the bar. 
{¶ 9} Based upon the foregoing, we agree that the applicant has failed to 
prove that he possesses the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications 
for admission to the practice of law.  Accordingly, we accept the board’s 
recommendation to disapprove the applicant’s pending application at this time, 
and we will permit him to apply to take the July 2012 bar exam, provided that he 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
submits a new application to register as a candidate for admission to the practice 
of law and is able to establish his character, fitness, and other qualifications. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and 
CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
BROWN, C.J., not participating. 
__________________ 
James D. Caruso, for applicant. 
Marshall & Melhorn, L.L.C., and Alan B. Dills, for the Toledo Bar 
Association. 
______________________