Title: In re Application of Myers

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 Myers, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-2812.] 
 
 
 
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. 2016-OHIO-2812 
IN RE APPLICATION OF MYERS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as In re Application of Myers, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-2812.] 
Attorneys—Character and fitness—Failure to cooperate in character-and-fitness 
investigation—Application denied—Applicant may reapply. 
(No. 2015-0539—Submitted June 10, 2015—Decided May 5, 2016.) 
ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness of the 
Supreme Court, No. 570. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Applicant, Andrew Albert Myers, is a candidate for admission to the 
practice of law in Ohio.  The Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness 
recommends that we disapprove his application because he failed to appear for 
proceedings conducted to assess his character, fitness, and moral qualifications to 
practice law.  On review, we accept the board’s recommendation to disapprove 
Myers’s application. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 2} Myers initially applied to take the February 2013 bar examination but 
failed to receive final approval of his character and fitness in time to take that test.  
He subsequently reapplied to take the July 2013 exam.  The admissions committee 
of the Cincinnati Bar Association reviewed Myers’s application and interviewed 
him.  Despite some concerns about his debts and his admission that he lied to a 
former employer about completing an assignment, the admissions committee found 
that he possessed the character, fitness, and moral qualifications required for 
admission to the practice law and recommended that his character and fitness be 
approved. 
{¶ 3} The board reviewed Myers’s application and determined, however, 
that his work history with the employer to whom he lied and his neglect of financial 
responsibility warranted further review of his character and fitness. 
{¶ 4} Accordingly, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. I(10)(B)(2)(e) and the board’s 
sua sponte investigatory authority, the board appointed a panel to conduct a hearing 
on Myers’s character, fitness, and moral qualifications to practice law.  The panel 
chair attempted to contact Myers several times by e-mail in an attempt to schedule 
a prehearing telephone conference but received no response.  The chair eventually 
reached Myers and scheduled the conference for September 20, 2013.  During the 
conference, the panel chair granted Myers’s request to continue the hearing so that 
he could have additional time to address certain issues relevant to his character and 
fitness.  Another prehearing telephone conference was held on April 14, 2014, at 
which Myers again requested and was granted additional time.  After a few months, 
in an attempt to schedule the hearing, the panel chair sent Myers two e-mails and a 
certified letter, which was signed for.  Though the letter advised Myers that failure 
to respond could result in a recommendation from the panel that his character and 
fitness be disapproved, he did not respond.  The director of bar admissions also 
attempted to contact Myers by telephone several times but was unsuccessful. 
January Term, 2016 
 
3
{¶ 5} The panel found that Myers failed to cooperate in the investigation, 
and it recommended that his application be disapproved.  The board adopted the 
panel’s recommendation. 
{¶ 6} We have reviewed the board’s report and the record, and we agree 
that Myers has not demonstrated the requisite character, fitness, and moral 
qualifications under Gov.Bar R. I(11) to be admitted to the bar.  Myers’s failure to 
appear for a hearing is sufficient grounds for disapproving his application.  See 
Gov.Bar R. I(12)(C)(6) (failure to fully cooperate in the character-and-fitness 
investigation may be grounds for a recommendation of disapproval). 
{¶ 7} We therefore accept the board’s recommendation to disapprove 
Myers’s application.  Myers may reapply for admission to the practice of law in 
Ohio by (1) filing an application to register as a candidate for admission to the 
practice of law and an application to take the bar examination and (2) upon 
reapplication, undergoing a complete character-and-fitness investigation, including 
an investigation and report by the National Conference of Bar Examiners, in order 
to determine whether he possess the requisite character, fitness, and moral 
qualifications for admission to the practice of law in Ohio.   
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Andrew A. Myers, pro se. 
Robert F. Brown, for the Cincinnati Bar Association. 
_________________