Title: In re Application of Brown

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 Brown, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-1863.] 
 
 
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-1863 
IN RE APPLICATION OF BROWN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as In re Application of Brown,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-1863.] 
Attorneys — Character and fitness — Application to register as a candidate for 
admission to the bar — Failure to disclose copyright-infringement suit — 
Application disapproved, with permission to reapply. 
(No. 2009-2118 — Submitted February 17, 2010 — Decided May 5, 2010.) 
ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and 
Fitness of the Supreme Court, No. 396. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Kevin David Brown of Cuyahoga Falls, 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 
disclose a copyright-infringement suit that was filed and served upon him as he 
prepared to submit his application to register as a candidate for admission, the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness recommends that we 
disapprove his character, fitness, and moral qualifications, at present.  The board 
further recommends that we permit the applicant to apply for the July 2010 bar 
exam.  We accept the board’s recommendation to disapprove the pending 
application, but will  allow the applicant to apply for the February 2011 bar exam, 
provided that he first submits 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 October 23, 2007, and the Bar Admissions 
Office received it on November 15, 2007.  On his application, applicant answered 
“No,” to question 20(A) – “Have you ever had a complaint filed against you in 
any 
civil, 
criminal, 
or 
administrative 
forum, 
alleging 
fraud, 
deceit, 
misrepresentation, forgery, or legal malpractice?”  Although he answered “Yes,” 
to question 20(E) – “Have you ever been summoned for a violation of any other 
statute, regulation, or ordinance?”  the only civil lawsuit he disclosed was a 2005 
municipal court action for default on a lease agreement. 
{¶ 3} The applicant amended his application on November 12, 2007, to 
correct his date of birth and provide “inadvertent[ly]” omitted information 
regarding his current employer, past employers, and additional information 
regarding several of his references.  On December 28, 2007, applicant appeared 
before a notary and verified that he had read his application, “answered all the 
questions fully and frankly,” and that the answers were “complete and true” to the 
best of his knowledge.  He again amended his application on March 5, 2008 to 
provide additional employment information in response to a request from the 
National Conference of Bar Examiners. 
{¶ 4} Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. I(11)(C)(3) and (D)(1), two members of 
the Akron Bar Association’s admissions committee interviewed the applicant on 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
June 19, 2008, 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 indicated that there was one change.  
Then, for the first time, the applicant revealed that in October 2007, Walt Disney 
Company had filed a copyright-infringement suit against him regarding certain 
eBay transactions and that he had settled the claim in April 2008.  Based upon the 
recent copyright suit, the bar association’s admissions committee issued a 
preliminary report approving the applicant’s character and fitness with 
qualifications. 
{¶ 5} The applicant appealed the 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). 
Copyright Infringement and Nondisclosure 
{¶ 6} At the June 9, 2009 hearing, the applicant testified that Disney had 
filed a copyright-infringement action against him in the Western District of 
California in 2007.  The suit arose from the applicant’s conduct during the 
summer of 2007 – between his first and second years of law school – when he and 
a friend bought approximately 300 to 500 unauthorized Disney DVDs from China 
and sold them on eBay for a profit. 
{¶ 7} The applicant testified that he never questioned the legality of 
importing 300 to 500 DVDs from China for $6 to $10, despite that country’s 
reputation for manufacturing bootleg materials.  When the chairman of the 
committee said, “You know, my daddy always told me, you buy a diamond ring 
for 10 cents, you got exactly that, a 10 cent ring,” the applicant responded, “Right.  
I can’t explain why that thought never crossed my mind.  Obviously, if I had to do 
it again, I [would] have said that exact same thing.” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 8} The applicant admitted that he had been served with the copyright-
infringement suit before he submitted his application.  He claimed that with the 
exception of a few questions for which he needed to gather additional 
information, he had completed his application when it first became available 
online, and he did not go back to see if he needed to disclose the lawsuit after 
having been served with the complaint.  However, he also acknowledged that he 
did not initially disclose the lawsuit because he “kind of wanted to see what 
transpired,” and “figured to wait to see after I settled it so I knew there was a 
resolution, and then my interview was shortly thereafter and I wanted to bring it 
up there.”  He also admitted that he did not disclose the existence of the lawsuit 
on two occasions when he supplemented his application. 
{¶ 9} The applicant did not present testimony from any character 
witnesses at the hearing, but submitted letters from co-workers and friends 
vouching for his good character and fitness to practice law.  Bryan L. Penvose, an 
attorney at the applicant’s employer, Koblentz & Koblentz, submitted one such 
character reference on the firm’s letterhead.  However, the applicant 
acknowledged that he had intentionally avoided disclosing his character and 
fitness woes to the named partner at the firm, Richard S. Koblentz. 
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).  
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. 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
{¶ 11} 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)(a) through (o).  The board found that 
respondent’s conduct violated Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3)(f) “by showing a pattern of 
disregard for the laws of the United States in selling pirated intellectual property; 
(g) by failing to provide complete and accurate information concerning his past; 
(h) by making an omission in his application and to his employer; and (i) by 
committing acts involving dishonesty, deceit, and misrepresentation both in the 
underlying conduct that led to the lawsuit, but more importantly during the 
admissions process.” 
{¶ 12} In establishing the weight and significance of the applicant’s 
conduct, the board noted that both the underlying conduct and respondent’s 
failure to report it were serious and were not youthful indiscretions because they 
occurred while he was a law student.  Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(4)(a), (b), and (d).  
And although the applicant’s payment of restitution was some evidence of 
rehabilitation, the payment was made only in response to the filing of a lawsuit.  
Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(4)(g).  Further, the board considered applicant’s lack of 
candor both during the admissions process and with his employer.  Gov.Bar R. 
I(11)(D)(4)(i). 
{¶ 13} We also note that Gov.Bar R. I(2)(F) imposes a continuing duty 
upon applicants to promptly report all changes or additions to information in their 
application to the Admissions Office.  However, the applicant made no such 
report, choosing instead to rely upon his verbal disclosures to the bar association’s 
admissions committee at his character and fitness interview, and to the board 
panel at his hearing. 
{¶ 14} The applicant has admitted that he had been served with a 
complaint for copyright infringement before he submitted his application to 
register as a candidate for admission to the Ohio bar and that he failed to disclose 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
the existence of that action in accordance with the duty imposed by Gov.Bar R. 
I(2)(F).  He also admits that he settled that suit, paying a substantial sum in 
restitution.  Given the seriousness and recency of the conduct leading to the 
copyright-infringement action, which occurred while the applicant was a law 
student, and the applicant’s deliberate decision to delay disclosure of the lawsuit 
to the Office of Bar Admissions, we agree with the board’s determination that the 
applicant has yet to sustain his burden of proof that he possesses the requisite 
character, fitness, and moral qualifications for the practice of law. 
{¶ 15} Based upon the foregoing, we accept the board’s recommendation 
to disapprove the applicant’s pending application.  Provided that he 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, the applicant may 
apply to take the February 2011 bar exam. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and 
CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
BROWN, C.J., not participating. 
__________________ 
Kevin David Brown, pro se. 
Tammy S. Richardson, for the Akron Bar Association. 
______________________