Title: In re Application of Winwood

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 Winwood, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-11.] 
 
 
 
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. 2018-OHIO-11 
IN RE APPLICATION OF WINWOOD. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as In re Application of Winwood, Slip Opinion No.  
2018-Ohio-11.] 
Attorneys—Character and fitness—Failures to disclose criminal record on law-
school applications—Pending application to take bar exam disapproved—
Reapplication permitted, for July 2018 bar exam. 
(No. 2017-1114—Submitted October 17, 2017—Decided January 3, 2018.) 
ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and 
Fitness of the Supreme Court, No. 682. 
___________________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Applicant, Mark Ainsworth Winwood, of Dayton, Ohio, is a 2014 
graduate of the University of Dayton School of Law.  In July 2016, he applied to 
register as a candidate for admission to the practice of law in Ohio, and in May 
2017, he applied to take the July 2017 bar exam. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 2} Two members of the Dayton Bar Association admissions committee 
interviewed Winwood in December 2016, and the committee issued a preliminary 
report recommending that his character and fitness be approved.  Because 
Winwood had been adjudicated a delinquent child for conduct that would be a 
felony if committed by an adult, his application was reviewed by the Board of 
Commissioners on Character and Fitness in accordance with Gov.Bar R. 
I(11)(D)(5)(a) and I(12). 
{¶ 3} A panel of the board conducted a hearing on June 21, 2017.  Based on 
findings that Winwood failed to disclose his past criminal conduct on his law-
school applications and delayed correcting those omissions for many years, the 
panel recommended that we disapprove Winwood’s pending applications but that 
we permit him to reapply as a candidate for the July 2018 bar exam.  The board 
adopted the panel’s findings of fact but recommended that we permit Winwood to 
reapply for the July 2019 bar exam at the earliest.  There are no objections to the 
board’s report or recommendation. 
{¶ 4} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and disapprove Winwood’s 
pending applications.  However, consistently with the panel’s recommendation, we 
will permit him to reapply for the July 2018 bar exam. 
Findings and Recommendation of the Panel and Board 
{¶ 5} The panel initially focused on Winwood’s past criminal conduct.  It 
carefully considered five juvenile offenses that he committed as a teenager in the 
early to mid-1980s.  The panel also considered several misdemeanor offenses that 
Winwood committed as a young adult, the last of which occurred in 2001.  Because 
all of those offenses occurred many years ago, however, the panel concluded that 
they offered little insight into Winwood’s present character.  Indeed, the panel 
noted that Winwood has had only a few minor brushes with the law in the last 16 
years— two traffic violations and a civil case arising from a traffic accident—none 
January Term, 2018 
 
3
of which raise significant concerns about his present character, fitness, or moral 
qualifications. 
{¶ 6} Although the panel acknowledged that Winwood has led a law-
abiding life for many years, it expressed grave concern about his failure to disclose 
his criminal history on his 1996 and 2011 applications to the University of Dayton 
School of Law.  At the hearing, Winwood acknowledged that he had affirmatively 
concealed his criminal record from the law school, in part due to his realization that 
full disclosure may have barred his admission.  He testified that during his second 
year of law school, one of his law-school professors advised him to amend his law-
school application to disclose all of his past criminal conduct.  Despite receiving 
that advice in 2012, Winwood continued to attend classes and graduated in August 
2014 without making any effort to amend his application.  Moreover, he made no 
effort to amend his law-school application when he disclosed his past criminal 
conduct as part of the bar-admissions process in July 2016.  Instead, he waited until 
April 2017—about 90 days before the bar exam he hoped to take—to “come clean” 
with the law school.  When asked to explain his delay, Winwood stated that he “was 
building up to it, summoning [his] courage to finally put the past away and come 
clean with” the law school.  The panel did not find his explanation compelling. 
{¶ 7} The panel acknowledged that Winwood’s criminal conduct is in the 
distant past and that he has served as a trusted paralegal at Winwood Rutledge, 
L.L.C., for almost ten years.  Based on several positive character references that 
praise his hard work, good character, and ability to relate to clients, the panel found 
that he may one day be qualified to sit for the Ohio bar exam.  But citing his recent 
pattern of affirmative concealment, the panel found that he failed to carry his 
burden of proving that he presently possesses the requisite character, fitness, and 
moral qualifications to practice law in this state.  Therefore, the panel recommended 
that Winwood’s pending applications be disapproved but that he be permitted to 
reapply as a candidate for the July 2018 bar exam.  As noted above, the board 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
adopted the panel’s findings of fact but recommended that Winwood be permitted 
to reapply as a candidate for the July 2019 bar exam. 
Disposition 
{¶ 8} 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. 
{¶ 9} Here, the panel and board found and we agree that Winwood failed to 
provide complete and accurate information concerning his past criminal conduct on 
successive law-school applications and therefore made false statements by 
omission.  See Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3)(g) and (h).  And despite having been advised 
to correct those misrepresentations in 2012, Winwood allowed them to stand 
uncorrected for another five years as he completed law school and sought admission 
to the Ohio bar.  See Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3)(i).  Given the sheer number of 
Winwood’s past criminal offenses, their relevance to the law-school admissions 
process, and the belated timing of Winwood’s corrective disclosure, we agree that 
he has failed to carry his burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that 
he possesses the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission 
to the bar at this time. 
{¶ 10} Accordingly, we disapprove Winwood’s pending applications, and 
consistently with the panel’s recommendation, we will permit him to reapply for 
the July 2018 or a later bar exam by filing new applications to register as a candidate 
for admission to the practice of law and to take the bar exam.  Upon reapplication, 
he will be required to undergo a complete character-and-fitness investigation, 
January Term, 2018 
 
5
including an investigation and report by the National Conference of Bar Examiners, 
and demonstrate that he possesses the requisite character, fitness, and moral 
qualifications for admission to the practice of law in Ohio. 
Judgment accordingly. 
KENNEDY, FRENCH, O’NEILL, FISCHER, and DEWINE, JJ., concur. 
O’DONNELL, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by O’CONNOR, C.J. 
_________________ 
O’DONNELL, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 11} Respectfully, I dissent. 
{¶ 12} Consistent with the recommendation of the board, to which there is 
no objection by either party, I would permit this applicant to reapply for the July 
2019 bar exam. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 
_________________ 
Mark Ainsworth Winwood, pro se. 
Harry G. Beyoglides Jr., for the Dayton Bar Association. 
_________________