Title: In re Application of VanDenBossche

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as In re Application of VanDenBossche, 88 Ohio St.3d 158, 2000-Ohio-290.] 
 
 
 
 
 
IN RE APPLICATION OF VANDENBOSSCHE. 
[Cite as In re Application of VanDenBossche (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 158.] 
Attorneys at law — Application to take Ohio Bar Examination denied when 
applicant has not met his burden of proving his present fitness to practice 
law in Ohio — Applicant prohibited from applying for any bar examination 
earlier than the February 2001 bar examination. 
 (No. 99-1882 — Submitted December 15, 1999 — Decided February 23, 2000.) 
ON REPORT of the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness of the 
Supreme Court, No. 189. 
 
On June 2, 1998, Achille Craig VanDenBossche of Avon Lake, Ohio, 
applied for admission to the practice of law in Ohio.  As required by Gov.Bar R. 
I(11)(C)(3), two members of the Lorain County Bar Association Admissions 
Committee interviewed VanDenBossche.  In January 1999, the admissions 
committee recommended that VanDenBossche’s application be approved with 
qualifications, which under Gov.Bar R. I(11)(F)(1) operated as a recommendation 
that VanDenBossche not be admitted to practice law in Ohio.  The committee 
based its decision on VanDenBossche’s extensive prior arrest record and the poor 
judgment exhibited by his past behavior. 
 
VanDenBossche appealed the committee’s decision to the Board of 
Commissioners on Character and Fitness of the Supreme Court (“board”), and a 
panel of the board heard the matter on May 10, 1999. 
 
The panel found that VanDenBossche’s criminal record included a 1975 
juvenile charge for disturbing the peace, a 1977 juvenile charge for operating a 
motor vehicle without a license, 1978 juvenile charges for carrying a concealed 
weapon and disorderly conduct, a 1980 criminal damaging conviction, convictions 
for various traffic offenses from 1980 to 1984, a 1992 assault charge, 1994 charges 
 
 
2
of gross sexual imposition and theft, and 1995 charges of loitering and prowling, 
resisting arrest, and battery.  The most recent criminal charges, i.e., those from 
1992, 1994, and 1995, all occurred when VanDenBossche was over thirty years 
old, and all of these charges were ultimately dismissed.  The panel placed special 
emphasis on VanDenBossche’s conduct regarding these recent criminal charges. 
 
In 1992, VanDenBossche confronted his best friend at his place of 
employment 
about 
a 
suspected 
relationship 
between 
the 
friend 
and 
VanDenBossche’s then-wife.  The conversation led to an argument that culminated 
in a brawl.  As a result of the fight, VanDenBossche was charged with assault, but 
the charge was subsequently dismissed after his friend decided that he did not want 
the case to proceed.  VanDenBossche conceded at the panel hearing that he had 
indeed assaulted his friend. 
 
In 1994, VanDenBossche went to a department store to return a damaged 
sweater that he had purchased for about $110.  The female sales clerk credited him 
with the original purchase price and then sold him another of the same style of 
sweater at the lower sales price of fifty-five dollars.  In order to express his 
gratitude, VanDenBossche offered to buy her a drink at a local bar.  At the time, 
VanDenBossche had been married only a few months to his current wife.  When 
VanDenBossche arrived at the bar that night, the clerk was there and he bought her 
some drinks.  After the clerk became intoxicated, VanDenBossche kissed her a few 
times.  According to VanDenBossche, he refused to take her home, but offered to 
call her a cab, and she declined and went back into the bar.  VanDenBossche was 
later indicted on charges of gross sexual imposition and theft after the clerk 
accused him of groping and raping her.  The court dismissed the case with 
prejudice after the clerk informed the prosecutor that she did not want to go 
forward with the case.  Despite the gravity of these charges, VanDenBossche could 
 
 
3
not recall the specific, underlying factual allegations of the charges, including 
where the offenses purportedly occurred. 
 
In 1995, while on vacation with his wife and baby in Englewood Beach, 
Florida, VanDenBossche drove his wife to dinner.  On the way back to his 
mother’s house from dinner, they decided to turn around and go to a club.  
VanDenBossche pulled into a parking lot to turn around, and another man pulled 
his car next to theirs.  After the man accused them of stealing his boats from the 
marina, he blocked their car from exiting the lot.  According to VanDenBossche, 
both he and the other man exited their cars, the man hit VanDenBossche with a 
plastic coffee mug, and they fought until VanDenBossche pinned him on the 
ground.  VanDenBossche blackened the man’s eye and fractured his nose.  
VanDenBossche advised his wife to drive away and after she did, he ran a half-
mile and hid in the woods.  Although he heard police sirens and there were 
businesses in that area, VanDenBossche stayed in the woods until the police found 
him and arrested him for battery, loitering and prowling, and resisting arrest.  The 
prosecutor subsequently dismissed the charges.  At the panel hearing, 
VanDenBossche apologized if his explanation of the incident seemed vague. 
 
The panel concluded that VanDenBossche had not satisfied his burden of 
proving by clear and convincing evidence that he presently possesses the requisite 
character and fitness for admission to the bar.  The panel based its conclusion on 
his lack of good judgment in the 1992, 1994, and 1995 incidents, as well as his 
lack of credible, complete explanations of the circumstances surrounding the 1994 
gross sexual imposition and theft charges and the 1995 Florida charges.  The panel 
recommended that VanDenBossche not be permitted to take the bar examination 
until February 2000.  The board adopted the findings of the panel, but 
recommended that VanDenBossche not be permitted to take the bar examination 
until July 2000. 
 
 
4
__________________ 
 
Fauver, Tattersall & Gallagher, P.L.L., and John L. Keyse-Walker, for the 
Lorain County Bar Association. 
 
Mary L. Cibella, for applicant. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  In order to be admitted to the practice of law in Ohio, 
VanDenBossche must establish by clear and convincing evidence his “present 
character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission.”  Gov.Bar R. 
I(12)(C)(6); In re Application of Kemp (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 274, 276, 703 N.E.2d 
769, 771.  Evidence of a pattern of disregard of the laws of Ohio or of other states 
and a failure to provide complete and accurate information concerning the 
applicant’s past reflect adversely on an applicant’s present character, fitness, and 
moral qualifications.  Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3)(f) and (g).  In other words, “ 
‘[a]pplicants for admission to the Ohio Bar must establish by clear and convincing 
evidence that their prior conduct justifies the trust of clients, adversaries, courts 
and others with respect to the professional duties owed to them.’ ”  In re 
Application of Nerren (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 322, 323, 681 N.E.2d 906, quoting In 
re Application of Keita (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 46, 47, 656 N.E.2d 620, 622. 
 
We adopt the findings of the board, but believe that a longer period is 
warranted before VanDenBossche should be permitted to take the bar examination.  
VanDenBossche’s criminal record, including his recent charges in which he 
admitted assaulting his best friend at his workplace and having physical contact 
with an intoxicated woman he had invited to a bar a few months after his marriage 
to his current wife, together with his failure to provide a full and credible account 
of either the gross sexual imposition or Florida charges, reflects a cavalier 
approach to the law and a lack of reliable judgment by VanDenBossche, even 
 
 
5
though the most recent charges were ultimately dismissed.  See In re Applications 
of Piro (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 400, 402, 613 N.E.2d 201, 202. 
 
Based on the foregoing, VanDenBossche has not met his burden of proving 
his present fitness to practice law in Ohio.  Accordingly, we prohibit 
VanDenBossche from applying for any bar examination earlier than the February 
2001 bar examination. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. 
 
COOK, J., concurs in judgment only. 
 
DOUGLAS and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent.