Title: In re Application of Clark

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 Clark, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-732.] 
 
 
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-732 
IN RE APPLICATION OF CLARK. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as In re Application of Clark, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-732.] 
Attorneys—Candidates 
for 
admission 
to 
bar—Character 
and 
fitness 
investigation—Dishonest answers on questionnaire—Application for 
admission denied; reapplication permitted. 
(No. 2012-1495—Submitted January 9, 2013—Decided March 5, 2013.) 
ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and  
Fitness of the Supreme Court, No. 516. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Andrew Logan Clark of Columbus, Ohio, is a 2010 graduate of the 
Florida Coastal School of Law and has applied to register as a candidate for 
admission to the Ohio bar.  Based on findings that Clark knowingly made false 
statements throughout the admissions process, failed to demonstrate that he 
understands the seriousness of his conduct, and failed to express any remorse, the 
Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness recommends that we 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
disapprove Clark’s application at this time but that we permit him to reapply to 
take the July 2017 bar exam.  We adopt the board’s findings of fact and 
recommendation. 
Summary of Proceedings 
{¶ 2} The admissions committee of the Columbus Bar Association first 
interviewed Clark on January 26, 2011, and recommended that his application be 
approved.  But noting Clark’s failure to disclose numerous traffic violations on 
his application, the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness returned his 
file to the bar association for further review. 
{¶ 3} After conducting further investigation and interviewing Clark a 
second time, the bar association recommended that his application be 
disapproved.  Clark appealed that decision to the Board of Commissioners on 
Character and Fitness pursuant to Gov.Bar R. I(12). 
{¶ 4} A panel of the board conducted a hearing on November 17, 2011, 
in which Clark admitted providing false answers on his application to register as a 
candidate for admission to the practice of law.  Specifically, on his August 27, 
2010 application to register as a candidate for admission to the practice of law, he  
answered “No” to the question “Have you been charged with any moving traffic 
violations that were not alcohol- or drug-related during the past 10 years?”  In 
reality, Clark had no fewer than 14 moving violations, some of which occurred 
while he was driving under a suspended license.  At the hearing, he admitted that 
he had known that he had a responsibility to answer the question honestly and that 
he had failed to do so on both his application to register as a candidate for the bar 
exam and on his subsequent application to take the February 2011 bar exam, 
despite his continuing duty to update the information contained in those 
applications.  See Gov.Bar R. 1(2)(F) and (3)(F). 
{¶ 5} Clark gave no less than four explanations for falsely answering the 
question.  First, he said, “I did not think the traffic offenses were the kind of thing 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
that had to be disclosed.  I did not think it was serious enough.”  Next, he said, “I 
thought that I had answered the questions the way that they should have been 
answered.  But I knew that I’d also done it [answered the questions on the 
application] with a lot more speed and a lot more brevity than some of the ones 
we as lawyers should.”  Then, Clark said, “So as at least a partial explanation, I 
would say that I always knew that this would be disclosed even if it didn’t appear 
on my application, that there would be knowledge in the State of Ohio that I did 
have traffic violations.”  And finally, he explained, “At the time I believed that I 
was being honest because I believed that I did not have the responsibility to 
disclose things that I thought were either not important enough or already 
disclosed.” 
{¶ 6} After the November 2011 hearing, the panel learned that Clark had 
also applied to take the February 2012 bar exam.  In that application he disclosed 
that a default judgment had been entered against him as a result of his failure to 
pay Columbus city income taxes from 2002 through 2007 and represented that he 
was “currently in the process of satisfying” it.  Having conducted a further 
investigation and discovered apparent inaccuracies in Clark’s answers, the panel 
convened a second hearing in May 2012. 
{¶ 7} At the second hearing, Clark admitted that his statement that he 
was in the process of satisfying the default judgment against him was false but 
claimed that that was why he had added a second sentence, which stated, “I am 
fully aware of this debt and I am currently working two jobs in order to obtain 
funds to correct this issue as soon as possible.”  When asked why he had not 
simply deleted the known false statement, Clark answered, “I don’t know, sir.” 
{¶ 8} The panel also questioned Clark about why he had not disclosed 
this income-tax delinquency on his August 2010, September 2010, or March 2011 
applications.  He replied that he did not learn of the delinquency until August or 
September 2011.  The panel, however, did not find this explanation credible, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
given the volume of notices that the city began to send in April 2006 to the 
Gahanna residence that Clark’s father occupied through 2006 and Clark’s 
admission that he did receive mail at that address. 
{¶ 9} Additionally, the panel found that Clark had falsely answered the 
question “Have you ever defaulted on any student loans?” by responding “No.”  
In his testimony, however, Clark admitted that he had been in default on his 
student loans at some point in time, though he claimed that his loans were in 
forbearance at the time of the hearing. 
{¶ 10} The panel felt that Clark himself best summarized the 
shortcomings of his character when he explained, “I have a—I have exhibited an 
inability to be honest when—when there’s a gigantic amount of embarrassment 
involved, when there is nothing I can do.  I felt very helpless, and I had difficulty 
being honest.”  Despite this revelation, the panel noted, Clark failed to 
demonstrate any remorse or appreciation for the seriousness of his conduct. 
{¶ 11} The panel found that Clark failed to demonstrate that he currently 
possesses the requisite character and fitness to practice of law.  Although the 
panel believed that some of his traffic violations “could be written off as youthful 
indiscretions,” it expressed deep concern about his numerous attempts to mislead 
the board and this court about the unflattering aspects of his past.  Believing that 
his dishonesty disclosed a profound weakness in his character—a weakness that 
the panel doubted could be corrected with time—the panel recommended that 
Clark be prohibited from reapplying for admission to the bar in the future. 
{¶ 12} The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and found that Clark 
does not currently possess the character, fitness, and moral qualifications 
necessary to practice law.  In light of his willingness to admit his difficulty in 
being honest in trying circumstances, the board expressed its belief that with time 
and maturity, Clark could one day come to understand the critical role that 
honesty and forthrightness play in the legal profession.  Therefore, the board 
January Term, 2013 
5 
 
recommends that we disapprove Clark’s character and fitness at this time but that 
we permit him to reapply to take the July 2017 bar exam. 
Disposition 
{¶ 13} 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).  “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.”  Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3). 
{¶ 14} In determining whether the record demonstrates such a deficiency, 
we consider a number of factors, including an applicant’s failure to provide 
complete and accurate information regarding his or her past; false statements, 
including omissions; acts involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; 
and neglect of financial responsibilities.  See, e.g., Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3)(g), (h), 
(i), and (k).  Based upon Clark’s numerous false statements and omissions 
throughout the admissions process and his neglect of his financial responsibilities, 
as demonstrated by the default judgment entered against him for delinquent tax 
obligations, we agree that Clark has failed to sustain his burden at this time.  
Furthermore, we agree that his belated candor in acknowledging his struggle to be 
honest when the truth proves to be embarrassing offers a glimmer of hope that he 
will mature and learn from his past mistakes. 
{¶ 15} Accordingly, we adopt the board’s finding that Clark has failed to 
prove that he currently possesses the requisite character, fitness, and moral 
qualifications for admission to the practice of law in Ohio and disapprove his 
pending application.  We will, however, permit Clark to reapply to take the July 
2017 bar exam, but will require him to submit a new application to register as a 
candidate for admission to the practice of law, as well as an application to take the 
bar exam, and satisfactorily complete a new character-and-fitness investigation. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Andrew Logan Clark, pro se. 
William Reddington, for the Columbus Bar Association. 
______________________