[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as In 

re Application of Daubenmire, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-2230.]

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. 2024-OHIO-2230

IN RE APPLICATION OF DAUBENMIRE.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as In re Application of Daubenmire, Slip Opinion No. 

2024-Ohio-2230.]

Attorneys—Character and fitness—Applications to register as candidate for 

admission to practice of law in Ohio and as candidate to take July 2024 

Ohio bar exam—Past criminal conduct—Applicant has established present 

character, fitness, and moral qualifications by clear and convincing 

evidence—Applications approved.

(No. 2024-0405—Submitted May 7, 2024—Decided June 12, 2024.)

ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness of the 

Supreme Court, No. 877.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Applicant, Zachary Charles Daubenmire, of Thornville, Ohio, is a 

2011 graduate of the Case Western Reserve University School of Law. In 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

November 2013, we found that Daubenmire failed to carry his burden of proving 

that he possessed the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications to 

practice law in Ohio because of his 2007 felony conviction for pandering obscenity 

involving a minor and his continuing duty to register as a sexually oriented offender 

until February 2017. In re Application of Daubenmire, 137 Ohio St.3d 435, 2013-

Ohio-4977, 999 N.E.2d 669, ¶ 1-3, 19-20. We therefore disapproved his 

application to register as a candidate for admission to the practice of law and 

authorized him to reapply as a candidate for the July 2018 bar exam. Id. at ¶ 3, 20

{¶ 2} In November 2022, Daubenmire applied to register as a candidate for 

admission to the practice of law in Ohio by completing a National Conference of 

Bar Examiners questionnaire.

{¶ 3} Two members of the Licking County Bar Association Admissions 

Committee interviewed Daubenmire in April 2023. In each of their reports to the 

admissions committee, the interviewers stated that Daubenmire did not possess the 

requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to the practice 

of law. Specifically, the interviewers were concerned that Daubenmire tended to 

minimize his criminal conduct and that he failed to appreciate that his felony 

offense was not victimless. Citing several incidents that occurred from 2015 

through 2017 and Daubenmire’s admission to drinking alcohol frequently, the 

interviewers also expressed concern that Daubenmire exhibited signs of potential 

alcohol abuse, a pattern of poor anger management, and a pattern of disregard for 

Ohio laws. Based on the interviewers’ reports, the admissions committee issued a

final report recommending disapproval of Daubenmire’s character, fitness, and 

moral qualifications to practice law.

{¶ 4} Daubenmire appealed the committee’s recommendation to the Board 

of Commissioners on Character and Fitness under Gov.Bar R. I(14). In January 

2024, a three-member panel of the board conducted a hearing, during which it heard 

testimony from Daubenmire and three other witnesses. Thereafter, the panel issued 
January Term, 2024

3

a report finding that Daubenmire had established his present character, fitness, and 

moral qualifications by clear and convincing evidence and recommending that his 

application to register as a candidate for admission to the practice of law in Ohio 

be approved. In March 2024, the board adopted the panel’s report and 

recommendation by a ten-to-one vote. On June 3, 2024, the board filed a motion 

to supplement the record with Daubenmire’s May 9, 2024 application to take the 

July 2024 bar exam. No response was filed. We hereby grant that motion.

{¶ 5} The matter is before this court pursuant to Gov.Bar R. I(13)(D)(5)(a) 

and (b), because Daubenmire’s conviction was for a second-degree felony under 

Ohio law. Because we find that Daubenmire has established that he presently 

possesses the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to 

the practice of law in Ohio, we approve his pending registration application and 

permit him to sit for the July 2024 bar exam.

Standard for Assessing an Applicant’s Character, Fitness, and

Moral Qualifications

{¶ 6} An applicant for admission to the bar bears the burden of proving by 

clear and convincing evidence that the applicant possesses the requisite character, 

fitness, and moral qualifications for admission. Gov.Bar R. I(13)(D)(1). An 

applicant may be approved for admission if the applicant satisfies the essential 

eligibility requirements for the practice of law as defined by the board and 

demonstrates that “the applicant’s record of conduct justifies the trust of clients, 

adversaries, courts, and others.” Gov.Bar R. I(13)(D)(3).

{¶ 7} A record that manifests a significant deficiency in the honesty, 

trustworthiness, diligence, or reliability of an applicant may constitute a ground for 

disapproval. Id. In determining whether the record demonstrates such a deficiency, 

we consider a number of factors set forth in Gov.Bar R. I(13)(D)(3). Among those 

factors are whether the applicant has been convicted of a felony or engaged in 

conduct reflecting a pattern of disregard of the laws of this or any other state and
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

whether there is evidence of an existing and untreated drug or alcohol dependency. 

Gov.Bar R. I(13)(D)(3)(a), (b), and (e). In determining the weight and significance 

to give an applicant’s prior conduct, we consider several factors, including the 

recency of the conduct, the seriousness of the conduct, the factors underlying the 

conduct, whether there is evidence of rehabilitation, whether the applicant has made 

positive social contributions since the conduct, and the candor of the applicant in 

the admissions process. See Gov.Bar R. I(13)(D)(4)(b), (d), (e), (g), (h), and (i).

{¶ 8} In addition, when an applicant has been convicted of a felony, we 

consider (1) the amount of time that has passed since the applicant’s conviction, (2) 

whether the rights and privileges of the applicant that were forfeited by conviction 

have been restored by operation of law, expungement, or pardon under the laws of 

Ohio, (3) whether the applicant is disqualified by law from holding an office of 

public trust, and (4) how approval of the applicant would impact the public’s 

perception of, or confidence in, the legal profession. See Gov.Bar R. 

V(13)(D)(5)(a)(i) through (iv).

{¶ 9} We now turn to the four issues of concern in this case: Daubenmire’s 

2007 felony conviction, his alcohol use, his anger-management issues, and his 

alleged pattern of disregarding Ohio’s laws.

Daubenmire’s Felony Conviction

{¶ 10} In February 2007, Daubenmire was convicted of pandering 

obscenity involving a minor in violation of R.C. 2907.321(A)(1) and/or (A)(6). 

During his first character-and-fitness case in 2013, we found that Daubenmire had 

been raised in a strict religious household and began looking at online pornography 

while he was still in high school. Daubenmire, 137 Ohio St.3d 435, 2013-Ohio4977, 999 N.E.2d 669, at ¶ 5. While attending college in 2001, he began to 

download pornographic pictures and videos of children. Id.

{¶ 11} At both his previous and 2024 character-and-fitness hearings, 

Daubenmire testified that he was interested in viewing only teenage girls. He 
January Term, 2024

5

admitted that many of the images he downloaded depicted girls under the age of 

18, but he explained that some images showed even younger girls because he could 

not always tell what he was downloading on the file-sharing applications he used 

to obtain the images. He stated that if he saw images that depicted younger 

children, he deleted them. He acknowledged that the file-sharing applications 

allowed other users to access the images if they were stored in a shared folder on 

his computer.

{¶ 12} Daubenmire’s illicit activity was discovered and reported to the 

authorities in 2006 after his father took the computer that Daubenmire had been 

using to a repair shop. Id. at ¶ 7. Daubenmire cooperated with the resulting 

criminal investigation, and with the assistance of counsel, he entered a no-contest 

plea. Id. He was sentenced to five years of community control and ordered to 

register as a sexually oriented offender, perform 100 hours of community service, 

participate in sexual-offender counseling, and abstain from alcohol. Id.

{¶ 13} Daubenmire complied with the conditions of his criminal sentence

and was granted early release from his community-control sanction in March 2009. 

Except for the right to possess a firearm or dangerous ordnance, his rights as a 

citizen of the United States of America and the state of Ohio were restored at that 

time. In addition to completing a court-ordered sexual-offender counseling

program, Daubenmire voluntarily engaged in additional sexual-health counseling

for about two years after his release from community control. He also complied 

with his ten-year obligation to register as a sexually oriented offender, which 

terminated in 2017.

{¶ 14} At his 2024 character-and-fitness hearing, Daubenmire testified with 

candor about what he had learned from his years of sexual-offender and sexualhealth counseling. The board found that he had gained valuable knowledge about 

himself and the reasons that he had sought out pornographic images depicting 

teenage girls. His sexual-health therapist opined in a June 2012 letter to the Office 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

of Bar Admissions that Daubenmire’s interest in pornography “was not motivated 

by a sexual deviance disorder or a psychological pathology. Rather, it was the 

product of complicated sexual conflicts of a young man whose conservative 

religious background suppressed normal sexual drive.”

{¶ 15} The board found that in his testimony before the hearing panel, 

Daubenmire made no attempts to minimize either the impact of his criminal 

conduct on the children in the images he viewed or the seriousness of his crime. 

He explained that any statements he made to the interviewers from the admissions 

committee regarding his belief that he was not hurting anyone referred to his 

mindset when he was downloading the illegal materials—and that it in no way 

reflected his current mindset. He expressed his understanding that the children 

depicted in those images were victims who were unable to consent and that even 

though he was not buying or producing child pornography, his viewing of the 

product alone contributed to their victimization.

{¶ 16} Applying the factors enumerated in Gov.Bar R. I(13)(D)(4) and (5), 

we observe that it has been more than 17 years since Daubenmire was convicted of 

pandering obscenity involving a minor. Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest 

that he has engaged in any kind of sexual misconduct since his felony conviction. 

Although Daubenmire remains under a weapons disability, the board found that his 

other rights have been restored and that he is not disqualified by law from holding 

an office of public trust.

{¶ 17} More than 15 years ago, Daubenmire received an early release from 

his community-control sanction, and he has not been required to register as a 

sexually oriented offender for more than six years. Although his crime was 

reprehensible, the potential negative impact that our approval of Daubenmire’s 

application might have on the public’s perception of the legal profession has 

decreased with his successful completion of the terms of his criminal sentence, his 

years of psychological counseling, and the passage of time—all of which point to 
January Term, 2024

7

his successful rehabilitation. See Gov.Bar R. I(13)(D)(5)(a)(iv). On these facts, 

the board found, and we agree, that Daubenmire’s 2007 felony conviction should 

not disqualify him from admission to the practice of law.

Daubenmire’s Alcohol Use

{¶ 18} The record shows that Daubenmire has crossed paths with lawenforcement officers on three occasions since his 2007 felony conviction, two of 

which resulted in convictions of minor misdemeanors—only one of which involved 

the inappropriate use of alcohol. Based on that alcohol-related offense and 

Daubenmire’s statements about his drinking habits, the interviewers from the 

admissions committee suggested that he may be dependent on alcohol.

{¶ 19} At his 2024 character-and-fitness hearing, Daubenmire testified that 

on July 25, 2017, he was drinking a can of beer in his parked car on private property 

while playing Pokémon Go (i.e., an electronic game in which players go to different 

locations to play the game on their cellphones). He intended to drink one beer while 

playing and then drive to his parents’ home, where he was dog sitting. He stated 

that he did not realize that it was illegal to consume alcohol in a parked car on 

private property and that he had consumed only a couple sips of beer before a police 

officer approached his vehicle. He conceded that it was not smart to be drinking in 

his car before driving, even though he was not impaired.

{¶ 20} The police report from that incident stated that Daubenmire had one 

open can of beer in the center console of his car and a second unopened can in the 

vehicle. The officer did not suspect alcohol impairment or perform a breathalyzer 

or field-sobriety test on Daubenmire, and he did not charge Daubenmire with 

physical control or operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Instead, the officer

charged Daubenmire with a minor-misdemeanor offense of having an open 

container of alcohol in a stationary motor vehicle under Hebron Codified 

Ordinances 529.07(b)(5). Daubenmire paid a fine, thereby admitting his guilt. He 

has no history of any other alcohol-related traffic or criminal charges.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8

{¶ 21} During his 2023 character-and-fitness interview, Daubenmire also 

disclosed to the interviewers that he often drank a “tallboy” beer (i.e., a beer larger 

than the standard 12-ounce can) before bed to help him sleep. At his 2024

character-and-fitness hearing, Daubenmire testified that after the interviewers

expressed their concerns about his alcohol use, he stopped consuming beer before 

going to bed and sought healthier ways to help him fall asleep. He explained that 

it had been important for him to get to sleep at a reasonable time because he and 

his wife were getting up multiple times a night to care for their two daughters who, 

at that time, were both under the age of two.

{¶ 22} In light of the interviewers’ concerns, Daubenmire testified that 

before the 2024 character-and-fitness hearing, he submitted to an alcohol 

assessment conducted by Trevor C. Davis, a licensed social worker and chemicaldependency counselor. Davis issued a report in which he found that Daubenmire’s

self-described drinking habits were “within or near” low-risk guidelines established 

by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and the National 

Institutes of Health. Davis identified some factors for Daubenmire’s risk profile, 

including elevated stress, mental-health issues, his legal history consisting of the 

single open-container case, and general demographics—taking into account the fact 

that attorneys are at an elevated risk for alcohol- and substance-abuse issues when 

compared to the general population. Davis determined, however, that Daubenmire 

did not have an existing alcohol-use disorder.

{¶ 23} In addition to these facts, Daubenmire presented testimony at his 

2024 character-and-fitness hearing from his employer, attorney Roger Weaver, 

who stated that he had never observed Daubenmire impaired, with alcohol on his 

breath, or hung over at work. Another attorney, a realtor, and a title-company 

employee, each of whom have worked in the same building as Daubenmire,

submitted affidavits stating that they had seen Daubenmire at work on a daily (or 
January Term, 2024

9

almost daily) basis and that they had never seen any evidence that he had used or 

was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at work.

{¶ 24} Applying the factors enumerated in Gov.Bar R. I(13)(D)(4), we 

observe that it has been nearly seven years since Daubenmire’s open-container 

conviction and he has had no other citations for alcohol-related conduct. And after 

the interviewers from the admissions committee expressed concern about his habit 

of drinking a beer to help him sleep, Daubenmire stopped engaging in that conduct 

and sought an alcohol-use assessment, which resulted in a professional’s 

determination that Daubenmire does not have an alcohol-use disorder. Moreover, 

Daubenmire has presented evidence showing that his alcohol consumption has had 

no impact on his work. The board found, and we agree, that Daubenmire has 

presented clear and convincing evidence that his alcohol use is not a character-andfitness issue that should result in disapproval of his pending application.

Anger Management and Alleged Pattern of Disregarding Laws

{¶ 25} Lastly, the interviewers from the admissions committee suggested 

that Daubenmire’s felony conviction for pandering obscenity involving a minor,

open-container conviction, and a disorderly-conduct conviction show that he has 

engaged in a pattern of disregarding the laws of this state. The interviewers also 

claimed that Daubenmire’s “cumulative conduct”—which includes three incidents 

(i.e., a bar fight, an argument with his cousin, and the disorderly-conduct offense) 

concerning Daubenmire’s anger management—could affect his ability to conduct 

himself in a manner that engenders respect for the law and the profession. Each of 

these three incidents are discussed in turn.

{¶ 26} On November 22, 2015, Daubenmire called the Hebron Police 

Department to report that three men had assaulted him at a bar near his home. 

According to the police report, Daubenmire told police that he entered the bar after 

the Ohio State University football team had lost a game and that to tease his 

acquaintances at the bar, he said, “How about them Buckeyes?” He stated that 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

10

sometime thereafter, a man approached him and asked if he was a registered sex 

offender. Daubenmire claimed that after he answered that question in the 

affirmative, the man got mad, stated that he had a child, and then grabbed 

Daubenmire and took him to the ground. Daubenmire further stated that he was 

then punched and kicked by that man and two others until other people stepped in 

to break up the fight.

{¶ 27} According to the police report, one of the men admitted that he had 

asked Daubenmire if he was a sex offender but told the officer that Daubenmire 

had elbowed him in the stomach before he took Daubenmire to the ground in selfdefense. The two other men purportedly involved in the incident told police that 

they never touched Daubenmire. No charges were filed against Daubenmire or any 

of the three men over the incident.

{¶ 28} During his 2023 character-and-fitness interview and at his 2024

hearing, Daubenmire also described an incident in which he and his cousin got into 

a shouting match on a golf course sometime in 2016. He testified that there was no 

violence and that his father stepped in to calm him and his cousin down.

{¶ 29} On October 15, 2016, at a Dollar General store, Daubenmire 

attempted to return or exchange a pair of earbuds that did not work. The store clerk 

called the Hebron Police Department and reported that Daubenmire got mad when 

she would not accept the return without a receipt, cursed at her, and threw the 

earbuds at her face. She stated that the earbuds struck her, and the officer who 

responded to the call observed a scratch on the right side of her face. Daubenmire 

told the officer that he had ripped up the earbuds and threw them into the air before 

leaving the store.

{¶ 30} The officer reviewed the surveillance video of the incident and 

reported that “it was clear that Mr. Daubenmire intentionally threw the [earbuds] at 

the victim resulting in the scratch to her face.” Although Daubenmire was charged 

with misdemeanor assault and disorderly conduct, the prosecuting attorney
January Term, 2024

11

dismissed the assault charge. Daubenmire pleaded guilty to the disorderly-conduct

charge, a minor-misdemeanor offense.

{¶ 31} At his 2024 character-and-fitness hearing, Daubenmire testified that 

he and the store clerk had shouted at each other after the clerk refused to allow him 

to exchange the earbuds without a receipt. He stated that he tore up the earbuds 

and threw them in the air. Daubenmire admitted that he was a “complete jerk,” but 

he denied assaulting the clerk or throwing the earbuds at her. He said that he 

believed the prosecutor had dismissed the assault charge after determining that it 

was not supported by the evidence.

{¶ 32} The hearing panel reviewed the store’s security video of the incident 

and found that it corroborated Daubenmire’s version of events because (1) his 

throwing motion appeared to be directed upward, (2) the clerk did not react as 

though she had been struck, and (3) the earbuds appeared to land on the ground on 

Daubenmire’s side of the counter.

{¶ 33} During his testimony at the 2024 hearing, Daubenmire expressed 

remorse about the Dollar General incident and admitted that his behavior was 

unacceptable. More importantly, he explained that after the incident, he recognized 

that he had anger issues and voluntarily sought mental-health counseling to address 

them. Daubenmire testified that he completed one and a half to two years of 

counseling, during which he learned tools and strategies to appropriately deal with 

his anger before it reached the point of boiling over.

{¶ 34} There was no evidence presented at the 2024 hearing that 

Daubenmire had engaged in any other angry outbursts since the incident with the 

store clerk in October 2016—a period of more than seven years—or committed any 

alcohol-related offenses since his July 2017 open-container offense.

1

 Furthermore, 

1. Daubenmire filed a supplemental disclosure with the office of bar admissions in December 2023, 

in which he stated that on November 30, 2023, he had been cited for failure to restrain a child. At

his 2024 character-and-fitness hearing, Daubenmire testified that he took his oldest daughter for a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

12

Daubenmire testified that he did not register to take the bar exam in 2018—when 

he was eligible to do so under our prior order—because he knew that he needed to 

address his anger-management issues and demonstrate to this court that he was past 

them.

{¶ 35} In addition, Daubenmire testified that he and his wife have been 

participating in couple’s counseling to deal with the stressors associated with two 

working parents caring for two young children, and he explained that the counseling 

has been helpful. The board noted that since his arrest in 2007, Daubenmire has 

demonstrated a pattern of seeking mental-health treatment when needed, 

committing himself to that treatment for significant periods, and learning how to 

improve his problematic behavior.

{¶ 36} At Daubenmire’s 2024 character-and-fitness hearing, Attorney

Weaver testified that he had known Daubenmire’s family for many years and that 

Daubenmire had worked full time in his office since about 2012. He stated that he 

was aware of Daubenmire’s felony conviction and that Daubenmire had openly 

shared and discussed the above-described incidents with him. Weaver believed that 

Daubenmire has benefitted from counseling and matured with the passage of time

and by becoming a husband and father. He testified that Daubenmire maintained a 

professional demeanor at work and that he found no reason to believe that 

Daubenmire has any current anger-management issues that would affect his ability 

to conduct himself competently, ethically, or professionally. Not only did Weaver

express his opinion that Daubenmire currently possesses the character and fitness 

drive that evening to help her fall asleep and that he was pulled over after he had swerved while 

trying to reach for a glass of milk that she had thrown. He stated that he was cited for failure to 

restrain his daughter because she does not like to be restrained and had wiggled the car-seat straps 

down below her shoulders. Daubenmire did not contest the charge and paid a fine. The board made 

no mention of this incident in its report, and we find that it has no bearing on his current fitness to 

practice law.
January Term, 2024

13

necessary to practice law in Ohio, but he also testified that he intends to employ 

him as an attorney if he is able to take and pass the bar exam.

{¶ 37} The board acknowledged that Daubenmire’s disorderly-conduct 

conviction, the alleged bar assault, and his public argument with his cousin may 

have raised significant concerns had he submitted a registration application in 2018. 

Citing Daubenmire’s evidence—including his voluntary completion of almost two 

years of mental-health counseling to address his anger-management issues and the 

passage of more than seven years with no further incidents related to anger 

management—the board concluded that the incidents from 2015 through 2016 that 

raised concerns about Daubenmire’s anger management are “not weighty enough 

to be disqualifying” now. We agree with the board’s assessment regarding 

Daubenmire’s anger management, and we also find that Daubenmire’s felony 

conviction combined with his two minor-misdemeanor convictions do not 

constitute a pattern of disregard of the law sufficient to warrant disapproval of 

Daubenmire’s application, compare In re Application of Dickens, 106 Ohio St.3d 

128, 2005-Ohio-4097, 832 N.E.2d 725, ¶ 4-7, 15 (applicant’s long history of 

criminal and traffic convictions combined with multiple court-ordered evictions 

demonstrated a pattern of disregard for the laws of this and other states that 

contributed to disapproval of his bar exam application); In re Application of Kapel, 

72 Ohio St.3d 532, 532-533, 651 N.E.2d 955 (1995) (applicant’s disorderlyconduct conviction and sustained pattern of disregarding traffic laws demonstrated 

that he lacked the requisite character and fitness to practice law).

Disposition

{¶ 38} At present, it has been more than 17 years since Daubenmire was 

convicted of pandering obscenity involving a minor, more than 15 years since he 

was released from community control, and more than seven years since he was 

required to register as a sexually oriented offender. And there is no evidence that 

he has engaged in any kind of sexually inappropriate behavior since the pandering-
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

14

obscenity conviction. It has also been more than seven years since Daubenmire’s 

angry outburst toward a store clerk resulted in a minor-misdemeanor disorderlyconduct conviction and almost seven years since his open-container conviction.

{¶ 39} Daubenmire has testified candidly about each of the incidents

discussed above and acknowledged the wrongfulness of his conduct. He 

participated in several years of mental-health counseling to address his sexually 

oriented misconduct and voluntarily sought and committed himself to almost two 

years of additional mental-health treatment to address his subsequent angermanagement issues. And most recently, he has participated in marital counseling 

with his wife to help with managing the everyday stresses of marriage and parenting 

two young children. He has demonstrated his growth and maturation through his

willingness to seek help when his stress begins to affect his mental health. He also 

wisely delayed his second application to register as a candidate for the bar exam 

until he was able to demonstrate that his anger-management issues had been under 

control for an extended period. Moreover, in his sworn application to take the July 

2024 bar exam, Daubenmire answered “no” to all questions about various types of 

conduct or actions that could have been taken against him since he filed his 

registration application. He has therefore indicated that he has no new information, 

conduct, or behavior to report that could call into question his ability to practice 

law in a competent, ethical, and professional manner.

{¶ 40} In addition, Daubenmire has found a dedicated mentor in Weaver 

and demonstrated his commitment to the profession by working competently, 

diligently, and professionally as a law clerk at Weaver’s firm for about 12 years.

In short, Daubenmire has accepted responsibility for his past actions, made efforts 

to learn from those actions and avoid repeating them, and has successfully 

demonstrated his rehabilitation.

{¶ 41} Upon consideration of the record and the applicable rules, we find

that Daubenmire has carried his burden of proving that he currently possesses the 
January Term, 2024

15

requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to the practice 

of law.

{¶ 42} Accordingly, we grant the motion of the board to supplement the 

record, adopt the board’s report, approve Daubenmire’s pending application, and 

permit him to sit for the July 2024 bar exam.

Judgment accordingly.

DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER, and DETERS, JJ., concur.

KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, J., dissent and would not allow Daubenmire 

to take the July 2024 bar exam.

_________________

Richard D. Brown Law Office, L.L.C., and Richard D. Brown, for 

applicant.

Reese Pyle Meyer, P.L.L., and Brian C. Reed, for the Licking County Bar 

Association.

_________________