Title: In re Application of Gueli

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 Gueli, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-1907.] 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-1907 
IN RE APPLICATION OF GUELI. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as In re Application of Gueli, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-1907.] 
Attorneys—Character and fitness—Dishonesty and neglect of financial 
responsibilities require disapproval of application to take the bar exam—
Applicant may reapply to take a later bar examination if he meets certain 
conditions. 
(No. 2011-1323—Submitted November 1, 2011—Decided May 3, 2012.) 
ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness of the 
Supreme Court, No. 426. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Jeffrey Vincent Gueli of Mayfield Heights, Ohio, was admitted to 
the Florida Bar in 2005 and has applied to register as a candidate for admission to 
the practice of law in Ohio and earlier applied to take the February 2009 and July 
2011 bar exams.  Citing Gueli’s lack of honesty, his resistance to treatment for his 
alcohol dependency, and his failure to take responsibility for his own support, the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness recommends that we 
disapprove Gueli’s character, fitness, and moral qualifications at present, but that 
he be permitted to apply to take the July 2014 bar examination if he meets certain 
conditions.  Gueli objects to the board’s recommendation, arguing that he has 
been successfully treated for depression and alcoholism for several years, that the 
board’s concerns about his honesty and trustworthiness are unfounded, and that he 
is competent to practice law.  We overrule Gueli’s objections and adopt the 
board’s recommendation to disapprove his pending application.  He may, 
however, apply to take the July 2014 bar exam on certain conditions. 
Summary of Proceedings 
{¶ 2} The admissions committee of the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar 
Association issued a report disapproving Gueli’s character, fitness, and moral 
qualifications.  Gueli appealed the committee recommendation to the Board of 
Commissioners on Character and Fitness.  See Gov.Bar R. I(12).  The board 
appointed a panel to review Gueli’s character, fitness, and moral qualifications, 
and the panel conducted a hearing on April 20, 2011. 
{¶ 3} The panel found that Gueli had been hired by the Office of the 
State Attorney in Florida in September 2005.  He resigned from that position in 
March 2006 after he was reprimanded for filing criminal charges without 
discussing the charges with his supervisor and then taking the case to the media 
when his supervisors did not agree with his actions.  Though he initially testified 
that he was unaware of any policy that would prohibit him from talking to the 
media, he later admitted that he had been advised of such a policy at his 
orientation.  He filed grievances against his former supervisors, but later 
dismissed them. 
{¶ 4} Upon leaving the State Attorney’s Office, Gueli commenced the 
private practice of law and apparently became increasingly delusional.  He 
claimed to believe that authorities had interfered with letters he had written to the 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
press and that authorities had once laced his drink with a deadly narcotic.  He 
filed a lawsuit in federal court naming President George Bush, Florida Governor 
Jeb Bush, and Florida State Attorney Earl Moreland as defendants, alleging that 
they had violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and 
had denied his First Amendment rights by interfering with his mail.  He also 
wrote to the Federal Bureau of Investigation with irresponsible and unprofessional 
accusations.  The federal court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss Gueli’s 
complaint despite Gueli’s opposition to dismissal.  At the panel hearing, Gueli 
testified falsely that he had voluntarily dismissed the action. 
{¶ 5} In November 2006, following the dismissal of his federal action, 
Gueli returned to Ohio from Florida.  He was unemployed for several months, 
until he obtained temporary employment with Litigation Management.  On his 
bar-exam application, he stated that he worked as an attorney, though he testified 
that he performed mostly paralegal tasks.  He also stated that he held a temporary 
position as an attorney for American Electric Power, but then testified that he had 
not been functioning as a lawyer. 
{¶ 6} In 2006 and 2007, the Florida Bar filed two complaints against 
Gueli based upon his federal lawsuit and an arrest for driving under the influence 
(“DUI”) that Gueli claimed was orchestrated by the authorities because of his 
federal lawsuit.  In responding to those complaints, Gueli sent inflammatory 
letters threatening to sue the bar.  He failed to appear for two hearings, claiming 
that he saw no reason to attend them because he had been acquitted of the 
criminal charge.  He also claimed that the hearings were 250 miles from his home, 
he had no access to a vehicle, and he could not take leave from his new job. 
{¶ 7} In 2008, a Florida grievance committee recommended, and Gueli 
agreed to participate in, a diversion program with Florida Lawyers’ Assistance, 
Inc. (“FLA, Inc.”).  Having returned to Ohio, however, Gueli, failed to submit to 
an FLA, Inc. evaluation by the specified date.  He did, however, enter into a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”), which the Florida 
grievance committee eventually determined was an adequate substitute for the 
required FLA, Inc. program.  Although Gueli claimed that the Florida grievance 
committee had closed Gueli’s file, the recommendation of diversion conditioned 
that closure on successful completion of the FLA, Inc.—and consequently, 
OLAP—requirements. 
{¶ 8} In early 2009, Gueli was evaluated by Dr. Brooke Wolf, an Ohio 
psychiatrist, who diagnosed him with major depression with psychotic features.  
While his first OLAP contract, executed in April 2009, was a mental-health 
contract, it required him to refrain from using alcohol and other mood-altering 
drugs.  Gueli’s failure to take his medication as prescribed and his excessive 
drinking, which tended to retard the efficacy of his medications and fuel his 
delusions, interfered with his treatment. He participated in an intensive outpatient-
treatment program for alcohol dependency from January through March 2010, but 
resisted the treatment. 
{¶ 9} As a result of Gueli’s continuing issues with alcohol, in June 2010, 
he entered into a second OLAP contract to address this chemical dependency.  
The contract required him to refrain from using all mood-altering substances, 
including alcohol, to submit to random alcohol screening, participate in 
Alcoholics Anonymous (“AA”), and obtain an AA sponsor within two weeks of 
signing the contract.  Gueli did not comply with this contract.  He did not attend 
AA meetings regularly, he waited approximately six months to obtain an AA 
sponsor, he failed two of his six random alcohol screenings, and he missed others 
because he failed to call his OLAP monitor, Paul Caimi, at least once a week. 
{¶ 10} When outpatient treatment and AA failed to work, Caimi, Dr. 
Wolf, and his licensed independent social worker, Paul Hunkins, recommended 
inpatient treatment.  Gueli refused to enroll in inpatient treatment, citing his 
inability to pay and his unwillingness to seek treatment even if it were free.  In an 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
e-mail to Caimi, Gueli claimed that he was drinking no more than ten alcoholic 
beverages a week and that he did not have an illness that required hospitalization.  
Although Gueli knew that both Hunkins and Dr. Wolf had recommended 
residential treatment, he testified that Dr. Wolf and Hunkins opposed it.  Dr. Wolf 
and Hunkins contradicted Gueli’s testimony, stating that they concurred with the 
recommendation for inpatient treatment. 
{¶ 11} As Caimi pushed for inpatient treatment, Gueli responded with a 
letter threatening to sue Caimi.  Gueli’s conduct—including his refusal to seek 
inpatient treatment, his failure to check in daily to see whether he was scheduled 
for a urine test, his failure to regularly attend AA meetings, and his continued 
drinking—led to the termination of his OLAP contract in August 2010.  When 
questioned about the effect the termination of his OLAP contract had on the 
proceedings involving his Florida license, Gueli testified that he believed he had 
informed the appropriate authorities.  He did not, however, provide the 
admissions committee with a copy of any letter he had sent to the Florida bar or 
received on this matter, flouting the committee’s previous request for all 
documents pertinent to the Florida case. 
{¶ 12} The panel states that after the hearing, Gueli provided a copy of a 
letter dated September 4, 2010, that he supposedly sent to the Florida bar 
notifying it of the termination of his OLAP contract.  The panel questions the 
authenticity of this unsigned letter and disputes the accuracy of the information 
contained in it.  In the letter, Gueli apparently reported that (1) his treatment for 
his depression, paranoid delusions, and alcoholism is going well, (2) he has 
regularly attended AA meetings since February 2010, (3) he had completely 
abstained from alcohol except for a brief relapse in March 2010, and (4) Caimi 
irrationally demanded that he obtain inpatient treatment and then terminated his 
OLAP contract because Gueli refused.  We cannot confirm that Gueli made these 
representations because this letter has not been preserved in the record.  But the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
evidence does demonstrate that Gueli attended only six AA meetings in August 
2010 (when he was required to attend at least three per week), attended no 
meetings in September or October 2010, and reported to Caimi in August 2010 
that he was drinking up to ten alcoholic drinks a week.  At the hearing, Gueli 
admitted that he continues to drink a low-alcohol beer, even though his treatment 
professionals recommend that he avoid all alcohol.  The combination of these 
failures led to the termination of Gueli’s OLAP contract. 
{¶ 13} The panel also expressed grave concern that Gueli had not been 
honest with his treatment professionals.  Those professionals testified and their 
notes reflect that Gueli told them he was attending AA meetings when he was not.  
Dr. Wolf opined that Gueli could practice law as long as he continued to take his 
medications and participate in therapy and psychiatric sessions, though she 
expressed concerns about his lack of honesty.  Hunkins acknowledged that 
Gueli’s lack of honest reflected poorly on his character and would make him an 
inappropriate candidate for the bar.  Though Dr. Wolf voiced concern that Gueli’s 
reports  to and about her were not accurate, she did not believe that his dishonesty 
adversely reflected on his ability to comprehend and make reasonable judgments 
or, consequently, on his ability to practice law.  In fact, she declared that if lying 
about the number of AA meetings attended made an attorney unfit to practice law, 
a lot of attorneys would be disbarred.  The panel rejected Dr. Wolf’s view, finding 
that she devalued the critical importance that truth and honesty play in the 
profession. 
{¶ 14} In addition to Gueli’s alcohol dependency, the panel expressed its 
concern about his financial responsibility.  He has lived with and been totally 
supported by his parents for several years.  Except for a few short periods of 
restaurant work, from which he has been terminated, he has been unemployed.  
And he has failed to present any evidence that he has made significant efforts to 
obtain employment.  Moreover, the record shows that he has credit-card and other 
January Term, 2012 
7 
 
debt of $18,500 plus $85,000 in student-loan debt, all in default.  Gueli has no 
plans to repay his debt or to support himself. 
Recommendation 
{¶ 15} The panel found that Gueli’s paranoia and delusions appear to have 
abated as a result of medication and psychiatric care, which Gueli will need for 
the rest of his life.  While Gueli’s alcohol dependency, his steadfast resistance to 
treatment, and his failure to take responsibility for his financial affairs were of 
serious concern, the panel was most troubled by Gueli’s inability to know or tell 
the truth.  Not only was Gueli not truthful with Dr. Wolf, Hunkins, and Caimi, but 
on numerous instances, his testimony was inaccurate.  Gueli, however, stood by 
his statements until challenged by incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.  The 
panel questioned whether Gueli knew that he was creating his own facts, whether 
he was just careless, or whether his mental-health issues contributed to an altered 
perception of reality.  Regardless of the cause, the panel found that at present, 
Gueli “is not a person upon whom clients, courts, adversaries, and others can 
rely.” 
{¶ 16} Citing Gueli’s significant deficiency in honesty, trustworthiness, 
and reliability, the panel recommends that his character and fitness be 
disapproved at this time.  See Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3).  The panel recommends, 
however, that Gueli be permitted to apply to take the July 2014 bar examination.  
In the interim, the panel recommends that Gueli (1) continue his treatment with 
Dr. Wolf and Hunkins, (2) enter into a three-year OLAP contract, and (3) fully 
comply with all the terms and conditions of that OLAP contract, as well as the 
recommendations of OLAP and his treating professionals. 
{¶ 17} The board has unanimously adopted the panel’s findings of fact 
and recommendations, except that the board would require Gueli to submit a new 
application to register as a candidate for admission to the practice of law no 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
sooner than November 1, 2013, followed by an application to take the July 2014 
bar exam. 
Disposition 
{¶ 18} 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).  
“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. 
{¶ 19} In determining that the applicant has not proved that he possesses 
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 has expressed 
concern regarding the applicant’s alcohol dependence and his resistance to 
recommended treatment, his neglect of his financial responsibilities, and his lack 
of candor in the admissions process.  See Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3)(b), (h), and (k). 
{¶ 20} Gueli objects to the board’s findings of fact and its 
recommendation that his character and fitness be disapproved at this time.  He 
argues that he has been a member in good standing of the Florida Bar and that 
while he has had “some issues with depression and alcoholism,” they have been 
successfully treated.  He challenges the board’s finding that he lacks honesty, 
claiming that AA attendance is “not critically important.”  Gueli contends that he 
has no problems knowing or telling the truth and that he has been responding well 
to his treatment for alcoholism.  He characterizes the board’s recommendation as 
“irrational and unfair” and asks us to admit him to candidacy for the practice of 
law in Ohio. 
January Term, 2012 
9 
 
{¶ 21} Having thoroughly reviewed the record, however, we conclude that 
Gueli’s objections are without merit.  Not only are the board’s findings supported 
by the testimony and evidence adduced at the hearing, but Gueli’s objections 
corroborate the board’s findings that he creates his own facts, which differ 
significantly from reality.  He has demonstrated a disturbing lack of candor in the 
admissions process and continues to minimize the severity of his alcohol 
dependence, while overstating the progress he has made in his treatment program. 
{¶ 22} Based upon the foregoing, we agree that the applicant has failed to 
prove that he currently possesses the requisite character, fitness, and moral 
qualifications for admission to the practice of law.  We therefore adopt the 
board’s findings of fact and disapprove Gueli’s application to register as a 
candidate for admission to the practice of law.  Gueli may submit a new 
application to register as a candidate for admission to the practice of law in Ohio 
no sooner than November 1, 2013, and may apply to take the July 2014 bar 
examination if he (1) continues treatment with Hunkins and Dr. Wolf and follows 
their recommended treatment, (2) enters into a new three-year OLAP contract, 
and (3) fully complies with all its terms and conditions as verified by OLAP. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, CUPP, 
and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
LANZINGER, J., concurs in judgment only. 
__________________ 
Jeffrey Vincent Gueli, pro se. 
Tucker Ellis & West L.L.P., and Susan Audey, for Cleveland Metropolitan 
Bar Association. 
______________________