Title: In re Application of Goodstein

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 Goodstein, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-4586.] 
 
 
 
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. 2013-OHIO-4586 
IN RE APPLICATION OF GOODSTEIN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as In re Application of Goodstein,  
Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-4586.] 
Attorneys—Character and fitness—Overpayment of unemployment-compensation 
benefits—Application to register as a candidate for admission to the bar 
disapproved—Reapplication permitted after conditions satisfied. 
(No. 2013-0402—Submitted May 8, 2013—Decided October 23, 2013.) 
ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and 
Fitness of the Supreme Court, No. 541. 
___________________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Daniel Robert Goodstein of Ada, Ohio, was expected to graduate 
from the Ohio Northern University Pettit College of Law in May 2013.  He has 
applied as a candidate for admission but has not applied to take the bar exam. 
{¶ 2} Two members of the Hardin County Bar Association’s admissions 
committee interviewed Goodstein.  Although one of the interviewers noted that 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Goodstein had revealed a “situation” regarding the overpayment of 
unemployment benefits that he was working to repay, the committee 
recommended that his character, fitness, and moral qualifications be approved. 
{¶ 3} The Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness exercised 
its authority to sua sponte investigate Goodstein’s character.  See Gov.Bar R. 
I(10)(B)(2)(e).  After conducting a hearing, a panel of the board issued a report 
expressing several concerns about Goodstein’s character including (1) an 
administrative determination by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services 
(“ODJFS”) that the agency had overpaid him unemployment-compensation 
benefits and that the overpayment was due in part to fraud, (2) his failure to 
disclose his unemployment-compensation fraud on his original application, (3) his 
failure to disclose that he had been subject to discipline as an undergraduate at 
Xavier University for incidents involving alcohol, (4) his failure to disclose a 
speeding ticket, and (5) inaccuracies in the reporting of his employment history. 
{¶ 4} The panel recommended that Goodstein’s pending application be 
disapproved, that he be required to fully reimburse ODJFS for the unemployment-
compensation overpayment, plus interest, before reapplying as a candidate for 
admission to the Ohio bar, and that he be permitted to apply to take the July 2014 
bar exam.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and recommendation of 
disapproval but recommends that Goodstein be permitted to apply to take the 
February 2015 bar examination provided that he has made restitution to ODJFS.  
The board further recommends that we require Goodstein, upon his reapplying as 
a candidate for admission, to undergo a complete character and fitness 
investigation.  Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we adopt the board’s 
findings of fact and conclusions of law.  Rather than permitting him to apply for 
the February 2015 bar exam, however, we will permit him to apply for the July 
2015 bar exam. 
 
 
January Term, 2013 
 
3
The Underlying Improprieties 
Unemployment-Benefits Fraud 
{¶ 5} The panel found that in February 2012, Goodstein sent the 
National Conference of Bar Examiners (“NCBE”) an amendment to his 
application updating his response to one of the questions, but he did not submit 
the amendment to the Office of Bar Admissions.  The amendment reflected that 
he had collected unemployment benefits after being “laid-off” from his 
employment as a sales representative for Total Quality Logistics1 but that ODJFS 
had later determined that a portion of those benefits had been overpaid due to 
fraud.  Goodstein reported in the amendment that ODJFS had determined that he 
became ineligible to receive unemployment benefits when he accepted a new job 
through an employment agency and then quit that job without providing notice to 
the employment agency.  He explained that he had quit the new job because he 
could not afford the commute for the three weeks before he would have received 
his first paycheck. 
{¶ 6} Goodstein further stated in the amendment that by the time he 
learned that ODJFS expected him to repay a portion of the benefits that he had 
received, he had found work as a part-time janitor and that with the payments he 
received from unemployment and the work, he “was barely able to make [his] 
monthly rent and utilities payments.”  The panel initially believed that this 
statement indicated that Goodstein had been reporting his earnings to ODJFS and 
had been receiving a reduced unemployment benefit.  At the hearing, however, 
Goodstein provided two ODJFS Determinations on Eligibility for Unemployment 
Benefits issued on April 28, 2010, and a later issued Director’s Redetermination 
of another determination that had been issued on that date, that proved otherwise. 
                                                          
 
1 He did not initially disclose this employment on his application to register as a candidate for 
admission to the practice of law. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 7} One ODJFS determination disallowed Goodstein’s claim for 
certain benefits on the finding that he had failed to report earnings from SMX 
Staffing (for the job that he had quit) for the period of September 6, 2009, through 
September 12, 2009, with the intent to obtain benefits to which he was not 
entitled.  Goodstein appealed another determination regarding that job that had 
also gone against him, and the director of ODJFS issued a modified 
redetermination that was substantially similar to the appealed determination, 
characterizing the payment of benefits for the week that included Goodstein’s 
voluntary termination of his employment as fraudulent because he had quit 
without just cause, while characterizing his claims for the ensuing period for the 
weeks of September 19, 2009, through December 26, 2009, as denied, but not 
fraudulent.  Therefore, the director ordered Goodstein to repay 16 weeks of 
benefits at $198 per week, a total of $3,168. 
{¶ 8} A different ODJFS determination found that Goodstein had not 
reported his earnings from the Jewish Community Center for the period of 
January 03, 2010, through April 24, 2010, and that he had withheld that 
information with the intent of obtaining benefits to which he was not entitled.  
This determination declared that his collection of those benefits was fraudulent 
and ordered him to repay the $3,168 in benefits that he had received for that 16-
week period. 
{¶ 9} While Goodstein sought to characterize his unemployment-benefits 
fraud solely as a misunderstanding about his eligibility following his voluntary 
termination of short-term employment, the panel expressed concern that he failed 
to acknowledge his “larger” fraud—falsely answering questions about his 
employment and income every week from at least January through May 2010 in 
order to collect unemployment benefits while he was gainfully employed—until 
he was cross-examined at the hearing.  The panel was particularly troubled that 
Goldstein had disclosed the true nature of his “problem with ODJFS” to a law-
January Term, 2013 
 
5
school classmate, who testified at the hearing that Goodstein “had drawn 
unemployment while also having a job,” yet had attempted to conceal it during 
the admissions process. 
{¶ 10} Goodstein paid $1,000 to ODJFS on July 14, 2010, and made two 
small payments totaling $43 on March 11, 2011.  In September 2012, he told the 
admissions-committee interviewers that he was working hard to establish a 
repayment plan, but he made only two additional payments of $50 after that 
interview—one on November 30, 2012, and the other on January 4, 2013.  At the 
time of that last payment, his outstanding balance, with accrued interest, was 
$6,705.04.  Although Goodstein initially claimed that his ODJFS case manager 
had advised him that he could not make partial payments on his account because 
the overpayments had been fraudulently obtained, he conceded on cross-
examination at the hearing that R.C. 4141.35 and an authoritative resource 
explaining repayment procedures appear to contemplate that repayment plans are 
acceptable, even in cases of fraud.  And although Goodstein testified that he had 
an oral understanding with special counsel for the attorney general’s office that he 
would make payments of $50 per month until he passed the bar exam and would 
increase his payments thereafter, he presented no documentary evidence to 
support this claim. 
{¶ 11} The panel noted that significant material inconsistencies became 
apparent when comparing Goodstein’s application, his testimony, and the 
evidence presented at the hearing with regard to his employment history.  While 
the amendment Goodstein submitted to the NCBE stated that his employment 
through the employment agency began on September 8, 2009, and ended on 
September 11, 2009, he testified at the hearing that he worked for only one day.  
The employment agency, however, reported that he worked for the company from 
September 9, 2009, through September 16, 2009.  And while Goodstein testified 
that he obtained a job as a janitor at the Jewish Community Center in October or 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
November 2009, the application submitted to this court states, and the employer 
confirmed, that he started working there as a “manager” in January 2010. 
{¶ 12} After the hearing, Goodstein filed a motion to correct his testimony 
to conform it to the documentary record, asserting that he had been confused 
about the date that he began working at the Jewish Community Center, and 
seeking to establish that the employment commenced in January 2010 as reported 
by the employer.  The panel denied the motion, noting that the employer was 
asked only to confirm Goodstein’s employment as a manager, not as a janitor—
the position that he testified he accepted in November 2009—and that regardless 
of when the employment commenced, the record clearly established that he 
fraudulently collected unemployment benefits while employed until May 2010. 
Underage Consumption of Alcohol at Xavier University 
{¶ 13} On his application, Goodstein answered “No” to Question 5A, 
which asked whether he had ever been subject to any disciplinary action at any 
educational institution.  Xavier University reported to the NCBE that he had been 
disciplined for a November 2004 incident involving a keg party and that he had 
completed all sanctions imposed.  At the hearing Goodstein offered a letter from 
the Office of Residence Life at Xavier University detailing not one, but two 
separate incidents involving the underage consumption of alcohol.  The sanction 
for the first offense, which occurred in September 2004, was five hours of 
community service, which he completed in October 2004.  For his second offense, 
which occurred in November 2004, he wrote a paper about his experience 
consuming alcohol. 
{¶ 14} Goodstein testified that he had forgotten about these incidents until 
Xavier reported one of them to the NCBE and that he felt that they were 
residence-life issues separate from his academic record.  The panel did not find 
his testimony to be credible in light of his brother-in-law’s testimony that 
Goodstein first told him about the incidents in early 2012, which coincided with 
January Term, 2013 
 
7
the timing of Goodstein’s application to register as a candidate for admission to 
the practice of law. 
Failure to Disclose Traffic Citation 
{¶ 15} The panel noted that Goodstein properly disclosed two traffic 
citations on his application but that he failed to disclose a third.  While 
acknowledging that under ordinary circumstances such an omission would not be 
a cause for concern, the panel noted that in this case it was one of many 
misstatements and omissions, demonstrating, at a minimum, Goodstein’s 
inattention to detail. 
Recommendation 
{¶ 16} Citing Goodstein’s numerous omissions and attempts to obfuscate 
the truth by concealing or minimizing the seriousness of his past misconduct 
throughout the admissions process, the panel recommended that his application be 
disapproved and that he only be permitted to apply to take the July 2014 bar 
examination, provided that he first satisfies his full obligation to ODJFS 
($6,705.04 plus interest) and completes a new application to register as a 
candidate for admission to the practice of law and a bar-exam application. 
{¶ 17} The 
board 
adopted 
the 
panel’s 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
recommendation that Goodstein’s pending application be disapproved.  However, 
the board recommended that he not be permitted to apply for the bar exam until 
February 2015, provided that he fully satisfies his financial obligation to ODJFS 
before submitting a new application to register as a candidate for admission to the 
practice of law and an application to take the bar exam. 
Disposition 
{¶ 18} We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the board.  
Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(1), “[t]he applicant has the burden to prove by 
clear and convincing evidence that the applicant possesses the requisite character, 
fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to the practice of law.”  “A record 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
manifesting a significant deficiency in the honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, or 
reliability of an applicant may constitute a basis for disapproval of the applicant.”  
Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3). 
{¶ 19} In determining whether the record demonstrates such a deficiency, 
we consider a number of factors, including but not limited to an applicant’s failure 
to provide complete and accurate information concerning the applicant’s past; 
false statements, including omissions; and acts involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation.  Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3)(g), (h), and (i). 
{¶ 20} The evidence demonstrates that in the year before he entered law 
school, 
Goodstein 
obtained 
unemployment 
benefits 
by 
making 
false 
representations about his employment status and earnings for a period of at least 
17 weeks.  Throughout these admissions proceedings, however, he attempted to 
characterize the overpayment of more than $6,000 in unemployment benefits as 
entirely the result of a misunderstanding about his eligibility for the benefits.  In 
light of these acts, involving significant and repeated instances of dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and Goodstein’s failure to fully disclose other 
unfavorable, but arguably less serious, information about his past, we agree that 
he has failed to demonstrate his character, fitness, and moral qualifications to 
practice law in Ohio. 
{¶ 21} Accordingly, we disapprove Goodstein’s application to register as 
a candidate for admission to the practice of law.  Provided that he first satisfies his 
full obligation to ODFJS of $6,705.04 plus interest accruing thereon, he may, 
however, reapply for admission to the practice of law by filing an entirely new 
application to register as a candidate and undergoing a new character and fitness 
evaluation, and may apply to take the July 2015 bar exam. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
January Term, 2013 
 
9
___________________________ 
Bruce Comly French, for applicant. 
Gregory A. Grimslid, for the Hardin County Bar Association. 
___________________________