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

re Application of Libretti, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-4338.] 

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. 2015-OHIO-4338

IN RE APPLICATION OF LIBRETTI. 

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

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

2015-Ohio-4338.] 

Attorneys at law—Application to register as a candidate for admission to the 

practice of law—Failure to prove character, fitness, and moral 

qualifications to practice law—Conviction of a felony—Failure to provide 

complete and accurate information about applicant’s past—False 

statements, including omissions—Acts involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, 

or misrepresentation—Violation of a court order—Applicant’s honesty and 

integrity intrinsically suspect—Applicant permanently barred from 

reapplying for admission to the practice of law. 

(No. 2014-1555—Submitted February 25, 2015—Decided October 22, 2015.) 

ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and 

Fitness of the Supreme Court, No. 563. 

___________________________ 

 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Joseph Victor Libretti Jr. of Cleveland, Ohio, has applied to register 

as a candidate for admission to the practice of law in Ohio. A two-person panel of 

the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association admissions committee interviewed 

Libretti on June 6, 2013, made a provisional finding that he possessed the requisite 

character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to the practice of law, and 

recommended that his application be approved. However, the Board of 

Commissioners on Character and Fitness, having held a hearing at which Libretti 

testified and having considered Libretti’s supplemental responses to his character 

and fitness questionnaire, recommends that Libretti’s registration application be 

disapproved and that he be forever barred from reapplying for admission to the 

practice of law in Ohio. In support of that recommendation, the board cites 

Libretti’s 1992 federal conviction under the “kingpin” statute for his role in 

organizing, managing, or supervising a criminal drug enterprise, his involvement 

in the sale of “spice”—a mix of shredded plant material and man-made chemicals 

that has been touted as a legal alternative to marijuana—following his release from 

prison, and his failure to fully disclose certain aspects of his postrelease conduct as 

required by the terms of his supervised release and by the application to register as 

a candidate for admission to the practice of law in Ohio. 

{¶ 2} Libretti initially objected to the board’s findings of fact and its 

recommendation that he be forever precluded from seeking admission to the Ohio 

bar but has since conceded that he failed to carry his burden of proving that he 

presently possesses the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications to 

practice law. Thus, the sole issue before this court is whether Libretti should ever 

be permitted to reapply as a candidate for admission to the Ohio bar. For the 

reasons that follow, we conclude that he should not. 

{¶ 3} As of the time of the board hearing and Libretti’s supplemental 

responses to his character and fitness questionnaire, Libretti was expected to 
January Term, 2015 

3

graduate near the top of his class at the Cleveland Marshall College of Law in 

December 2014. More than two dozen character letters demonstrate that he is well 

liked by fellow students, professors, attorneys, and both past and present employers, 

who describe him as talented, intelligent, and hard working. While it appears that 

Libretti may possess an advocate’s skills, his conduct during his supervised release 

and throughout this admissions process caused the board to question whether he 

has been fully rehabilitated and whether he will ever possess the requisite character, 

fitness, and moral qualifications to practice law in Ohio. 

{¶ 4} In 1992, Libretti pleaded guilty to a felony count of engaging in a 

continuing criminal enterprise to distribute marijuana and cocaine in violation of 

21 U.S.C. 848. Multiple other charges against him were dropped and he was 

sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release. 

In early 2008, after serving 16 years, he was released from prison and sent to a 

halfway house in Casper, Wyoming. He completed his supervised release in May 

2013—approximately 18 months before he was expected to graduate from law 

school. 

{¶ 5} Shortly after his release from prison and while he was on supervised 

release in Wyoming, Libretti began engaging in morally (if not legally) 

questionable conduct involving spice, the man-made marijuana alternative. At 

first, he used his credit card to finance the spice business of his roommate—a 

convicted drug dealer whom he had met in a halfway house after his release from 

prison—and ran the proceeds of that business through his bank account to avoid 

having them garnished to satisfy his roommate’s child-support obligations. Libretti 

later stepped in to manage the business on a temporary basis when his roommate 

went to prison for a probation violation. But shortly after his roommate’s release, 

authorities searched the home that the two men shared and seized quantities of 

spice, chemicals to manufacture spice, and $7,200 in cash. The following month, 

his roommate committed suicide, and Libretti continued his business—selling spice 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

and its components to buyers in Wyoming even after he moved to Ohio in August 

2010 to attend law school. He also recruited a known methamphetamine dealer to 

assist him in the endeavor. 

{¶ 6} The terms and conditions of Libretti’s supervised release required him 

to report his income to his probation officer and prohibited him from associating 

with persons engaged in criminal activity and with convicted felons. Because his 

roommate had set up a trust for the business revenue and advised Libretti that there 

was no need to report the income as the money legally belonged to the trust, Libretti 

chose not to report his spice income to his probation officer. Although he told his 

admissions-committee interviewers that he had fully complied with the terms of his 

supervised release, he later admitted that his failure to report the significant income 

generated by his spice business and his association with a known methamphetamine 

dealer violated those terms. 

{¶ 7} In November 2010, Libretti learned that the United States Drug 

Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) had issued a public notice that it would be 

scheduling five chemicals used to make spice, including one called JWH-018. He 

testified that he set out to liquidate his supply of JWH-018 before the DEA took 

action. But three months into his claimed liquidation, he ordered an additional 

$17,500 of that substance for a customer only to cancel the order when he learned 

that the DEA’s scheduling order was imminent. The next day, March 1, 2011, the 

DEA scheduled JWH-018 and four other chemicals as controlled substances, 

making it illegal to possess or sell them in the United States. 

{¶ 8} After the DEA order went into effect, Libretti gathered the spice and 

the JWH-018 that remained in his possession, packaged them in a U.S. Mail priority 

mailing box, and addressed it to his lawyer in Casper, Wyoming. Instead of mailing 

the package to his attorney or finding a safe and legal method to dispose of the 

chemicals, Libretti placed the package in a storage closet at his Cleveland, Ohio 
January Term, 2015 

5

apartment building. His continued possession of this controlled substance violated 

the law and the terms of his supervised release. 

{¶ 9} In late March 2011, Libretti was indicted in Wyoming on a single 

count of conspiracy to distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine, though 

he was later acquitted. After his Cleveland apartment had been searched and he 

had instructed his attorney to request immunity, he directed authorities to the box 

of spice and JWH-018 that remained in his apartment-building storage closet. 

{¶ 10} Although Libretti repeatedly claimed that his spice business was 

completely legal, he did not disclose its existence on his registration application in 

response to Question 23C, which asked, “Have you ever been engaged in your own 

business or been a director, an officer, a more than five percent shareholder, a 

partner or a joint venture [sic] in any business enterprise?”). He did, however, 

mention his involvement in an “herbal incense” business during his admissionscommittee interview. But even then, he failed to disclose that he had recruited a 

known methamphetamine dealer to distribute his product, had continued to run the 

enterprise after his roommate died, had used a trust to disguise income, and had 

possessed JWH-018 after it became a controlled substance. 

{¶ 11} Libretti also failed to disclose a 2011 request for immunity on his 

registration application in response to Question 20(B), which asked, “Have you 

ever been granted immunity from prosecution?” He testified that although he had 

requested immunity, he had never received any confirmation that his request had 

been granted, and therefore he concluded that no disclosure was required. Given 

an April 6, 2011 DEA report stating that the assistant United States attorney had 

received approval to grant Libretti immunity with regard to the drug evidence 

seized from his Cleveland apartment on March 30, 2011, and Libretti’s “highly 

tuned distrust” of prosecutors, law-enforcement personnel, and governmental 

agencies, the board did not believe his claimed ignorance. And the supplemental 

answers that Libretti submitted in May 2014 to address the immunity issue proved 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

to be even less informative than his testimony, which the board deemed “evasive 

and not believable.” In the end, the board determined that Libretti’s omissions 

throughout the admissions process were deliberate. 

{¶ 12} The board was also struck by what it described as Libretti’s “amoral 

viewpoint” regarding his criminal activities and his subsequent spice operation. 

One of his admissions-committee interviewers testified that while Libretti 

described his conduct as stupid and foolish and recognized the negative impact it 

had had on his own life and the lives of his family members, he expressed no real 

concern about the harm that his conduct had visited upon the countless others who 

were affected by his past criminal activities or his sale of spice. 

{¶ 13} Libretti has also engaged in multiple appeals of virtually all aspects 

of his criminal sentence except the statutory minimum prison term and has filed 

numerous civil actions challenging various searches and forfeitures of his property. 

See United States v. Libretti, 28 Fed.Appx. 754, 756-757 (10th Cir.2001) (noting 

Libretti’s persistent challenging of his guilty plea and the forfeiture aspect of his 

sentence and citing eight separate cases, including six civil actions, in which he 

raised those challenges—not counting the issues immediately before the court or 

Libretti’s direct appeal challenging the forfeiture order, which was affirmed in 

United States v. Libretti, 38 F.3d 523 (10th Cir.1994), and Libretti v. United States, 

516 U.S. 29, 116 S.Ct. 356, 133 L.Ed.2d 271 (1995)). While the board recognized 

that an individual is entitled to pursue the vindication of his rights in a court of law, 

it believed that Libretti “may have crossed the line into litigiousness,” given that 

many of the claims were duplicative and were dismissed, some on res judicata or 

collateral-estoppel grounds. The board found that this pattern of repetitive 

litigation did not reflect a person who has respect for the law, but rather a person 

who uses it as a weapon to harass others. 

Disposition 
January Term, 2015 

7

{¶ 14} 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. And when an applicant’s background includes a felony conviction, 

the applicant bears the burden of proving not only that he is morally fit to practice 

law but also that he is fully and completely rehabilitated. In re Application of 

Poignon, 132 Ohio St.3d 395, 2012-Ohio-2915, 972 N.E.2d 580, 

¶ 16, citing In re Application of Keita, 74 Ohio St.3d 46, 48, 656 N.E.2d 620 (1995), 

citing In re Application of Davis, 38 Ohio St.2d 273, 275, 313 N.E.2d 363 (1974). 

{¶ 15} Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3) provides a nonexhaustive list of factors to be 

considered in assessing an applicant’s character and fitness for admission to the 

bar. Among the enumerated factors, the following are relevant here: (1) 

commission or conviction of a felony, (2) failure to provide complete and accurate 

information concerning the applicant’s past, (3) false statements, including 

omissions, (4) acts involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and 

(5) violation of a court order. See Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3)(a), (g), (h), (i), and (m). 

{¶ 16} Libretti’s criminal record is significant. Although he was charged 

with multiple offenses, he pleaded guilty to just one charge after a week of trial. 

According to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, he received 

a favorable plea agreement despite what the court described as “overwhelming 

evidence of his guilt” and was sentenced to 20 years in prison—the minimum 

sentence for the sole offense for which he was convicted. United States v. Libretti, 

38 F.3d at 529-530. After serving 16 years in prison for running a criminal drug 

enterprise, he engaged in a pattern of conduct that may have been technically legal 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8

but was morally questionable, that mirrored the conduct that led to his conviction 

(though with substances that were apparently legal at the time), and that violated at 

least three terms of his court-ordered supervised release. Yet throughout this 

proceeding, Libretti has touted the facts that he was never charged with a violation 

of his supervised release and that he was “successfully discharged.” In truth, he 

violated multiple terms of his supervised release but did not get caught. We expect 

more from candidates seeking admission to the bar. 

{¶ 17} Rather than fully disclosing the mistakes that he has made since his 

release from prison, Libretti has intentionally concealed and misrepresented them 

during every step of the admissions process. 

{¶ 18} While Libretti has acknowledged that his honesty and credibility are 

relevant in determining whether he possesses the character and fitness necessary to 

practice law, he has also espoused the view that the onus was on the questioner to 

ask the right questions before he would give a complete answer. Such a view is the 

antithesis of the honesty and candor that the admissions process demands. 

{¶ 19} We find that the conduct identified by the board raises serious 

concerns about Libretti’s ability to satisfy at least four of the ten essential eligibility 

requirements for the practice of law, including (1) the ability to exercise good 

judgment in conducting one’s professional business, (2) the ability to conduct 

oneself with a high degree of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness in all 

professional relationships and with respect to all legal obligations, (3) the ability to 

conduct oneself with respect for and in accordance with the law and the Ohio Rules 

of Professional Conduct, and (4) the ability to conduct oneself professionally and 

in a manner that engenders respect for the law and the profession. See Supreme 

Court of Ohio, Definitions of Essential Eligibility Requirements for the Practice of 

Law, Requirement Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 10, 

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/AttySvcs/admissions/pdf/ESSENTIAL_ELIG

IBILITY_REQUREMENTS.pdf. 
January Term, 2015 

9

{¶ 20} We have recognized that “[a]n applicant whose honesty and integrity 

are intrinsically suspect cannot be admitted to the Ohio bar.” In re Application of 

Aboyade, 103 Ohio St.3d 318, 2004-Ohio-4773, 815 N.E.2d 383, 

¶ 16, citing In re Application of Cvammen, 102 Ohio St.3d 13, 2004-Ohio-1584, 

806 N.E.2d 498, ¶ 22. For that reason, in Aboyade we permanently denied the 

applicant admission to the Ohio bar based on a pattern of dishonest conduct that 

included falsification of law-school transcripts, false testimony under oath, 

disbarment in another state, and the applicant’s failure to disclose material facts in 

her original and supplemental applications. Aboyade at ¶ 10-16. Likewise, in 

Cvammen, we forever barred an applicant who gave inconsistent testimony 

throughout the admissions process in an effort to explain away questionable 

conduct that resulted in his forced resignation from employment. Cvammen at 

 ¶ 18-22. Because we find that Libretti’s ethical infractions are longstanding and 

so permeate the admissions process that his honesty and integrity are shown to be 

intrinsically suspect, we conclude that we must permanently deny his application 

to register as a candidate for admission to the Ohio bar. 

{¶ 21} Accordingly, we overrule Libretti’s objections, adopt the board’s 

findings of fact, disapprove Libretti’s pending application, and forever bar him 

from reapplying for the privilege of practicing law in this state. 

Judgment accordingly. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and KENNEDY,JJ., 

concur. 

FRENCH and O’NEILL, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part. 

_________________ 

FRENCH, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. 

{¶ 22} Joseph Victor Libretti Jr. concedes that he has not carried his burden 

of demonstrating that he presently possesses the requisite character, fitness, and 

moral qualifications for admission to the practice of law, and I concur with the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

10 

disapproval of his pending application. But I respectfully dissent from the 

majority’s judgment to forever bar Libretti from reapplying for the privilege of 

practicing law in this state. 

{¶ 23} To be sure, Libretti’s record is troubling. It contains a serious felony 

conviction, morally questionable participation in and operation of a spice business 

following Libretti’s release from prison, concealment of information related to that 

business in violation of the terms of his supervised release, and a lack of honesty 

and candor with respect to potentially damaging information during the admissions 

process. Nevertheless, I cannot agree that Libretti deserves “what is essentially a 

death sentence” to the legal career to which he aspires. In re Application of 

Corrigan, 47 Ohio St.3d 32, 37, 546 N.E.2d 1315 (1989) (Sweeney, J., dissenting). 

{¶ 24} A prior felony conviction does not necessarily demonstrate that an 

applicant lacks the present moral character necessary to practice law, In re 

Application of Poignon, 132 Ohio St.3d 395, 2012-Ohio-2915, 972 N.E.2d 580, 

¶ 16, let alone that the applicant will never possess the necessary character, see In 

re Application of Davis, 61 Ohio St.2d 371, 403 N.E.2d 189 (1980) (approving, 

over the recommendation of the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness, 

an applicant who had been convicted of a felony). An applicant with a prior felony 

conviction, however, bears the additional burden of proving full and complete 

rehabilitation. Poignon at ¶ 16, citing In re Application of Keita, 74 Ohio St.3d 46, 

48, 656 N.E.2d 620 (1995), citing In re Application of Davis, 38 Ohio St.2d 273, 

275, 313 N.E.2d 363 (1974). That rule manifests the common belief that a person 

who has committed bad acts in the past may be rehabilitated to the extent necessary 

to engage in the practice of law. Imposing a permanent bar upon Libretti because 

he has not yet demonstrated complete rehabilitation and because he does not 

presently possess the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications is 

antithetical to that belief. 
January Term, 2015 

11 

{¶ 25} Libretti’s postrelease conduct and lack of candor during the 

admissions process weigh against a finding that Libretti is fully and completely 

rehabilitated. They also independently weigh against a finding that he presently 

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

the bar. As with a felony conviction, however, dishonesty during the admissions 

process does not necessarily require permanent denial of the opportunity to apply 

for bar admission. Even where an applicant’s record includes both prior 

convictions and instances of dishonesty and deceit in the admissions process, we 

have permitted reapplication after a specified period and, in some instances, upon 

compliance with stated conditions. See In re Application of Worthy, 136 Ohio St.3d 

142, 2013-Ohio-3018, 991 N.E.2d 1131, ¶ 9, 14; In re Application of Corrigan, 123 

Ohio St.3d 173, 2009-Ohio-4183, 915 N.E.2d 300, ¶ 9, 13, 17. 

{¶ 26} We have declined to impose a draconian, permanent bar to 

admission when we have not been persuaded that the applicant “completely lacks 

rehabilitation potential.” In re Application of Holzhauser, 66 Ohio St.3d 43, 46, 

607 N.E.2d 833 (1993); see also In re Application of Clark, 135 Ohio St.3d 252, 

2013-Ohio-732, 985 N.E.2d 1266, ¶ 14 (finding a “glimmer of hope” that the 

applicant could mature and learn from past mistakes, based on “belated candor in 

acknowledging his struggle to be honest”). 

{¶ 27} Here, Libretti has accepted responsibility for the criminal conduct 

that led to his lengthy prison sentence and has been open with law-school 

classmates, professors, and employers about that conduct and its consequences. He 

has spoken publicly about his past to lawyers and judges and has served as a 

presenter at anti-drug and health-awareness programs. Libretti has also 

acknowledged, albeit belatedly, his lack of honesty in the admissions process and 

admits that he should have been open and candid about his spice business. While 

Libretti’s acknowledgment of his shortcomings in no way undermines their 

seriousness, it does indicate the capacity for rehabilitation. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

12 

{¶ 28} In determining whether Libretti might one day prove that he 

possesses the necessary qualities for admission to the bar, we should not downplay 

Libretti’s stellar academic performance and the numerous endorsements of his 

ethical and professional conduct in the workplace that appear in the record. An 

applicant’s performance in past and current professional endeavors, including his 

performance in academic pursuits and ability to function in a work environment, is 

highly probative of the ability to function honestly and effectively in the practice 

of law. Davis, 61 Ohio St.2d at 374, 403 N.E.2d 189. The record here contains 

supportive letters from Libretti’s classmates, professors, and past and present 

employers. Of particular note, eight attorneys from the Cuyahoga County Public 

Defender’s Office have filed an amicus brief praising Libretti’s judgment, work 

ethic, and enthusiasm for the office’s work. When the amicus brief was filed, 

Libretti had served as an intern in the public defender’s office for over 18 months, 

and that office has agreed to continue supervising Libretti as a law clerk to further 

oversee his professional development. Letters from Libretti’s supervising attorneys 

commend his commitment, high ethical standards, and passion and respect for the 

law and individual constitutional rights, as well as his special understanding of and 

compassion for the office’s clients. In my view, the record supports the possibility 

that with additional time, Libretti may be able to prove that he has the necessary 

attributes to engage in the practice of law. 

{¶ 29} The denial of Libretti’s pending application, with an allowance that 

he be permitted to apply for the 2017 bar examination, would adequately protect 

the public and the integrity of the legal profession while not forever slamming the 

doors of that profession in the face of a potential asset to the Ohio bar. Of course, 

Libretti would still face a high hurdle in satisfying the character and fitness 

requirements upon reapplication, given the evidence weighing against him. It may 

be that in light of his past behavior, Libretti is never able to produce clear and 

convincing evidence that he is qualified to be a member of the Ohio bar. But in 
January Term, 2015 

13 

weighing his acknowledged past transgressions against the demonstrated 

dedication, academic success, and professional workplace conduct that Libretti has 

demonstrated in recent years, I cannot agree that this court should forever deny him 

the opportunity to meet that burden. 

{¶ 30} For these reasons, I would deny Libretti’s application but allow him 

to apply to take the July 2017 bar examination. Accordingly, I concur in part and 

dissent in part. 

 O’NEILL, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 

_________________ 

Deborah Zaccaro Hoffman, for applicant. 

Paul G. Crist, for the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association. 

James F. Lentz, for amici curiae Citizens’ Institute for Law and Public 

Policy and CURE-Ohio, in support of applicant. 

Robert J. Wall, for amicus curiae Ohio Justice & Policy Center, in support 

of applicant. 

Robert L. Tobik, John T. Martin, Erica Cunliffe, Jeffrey M. Gamso, Linda 

Hricko, Paul Kuzmins, Christopher Scott Maher, and Cullen Sweeney, as amici 

curiae, in support of applicant. 

Pamela Daiker-Middaugh, Avery Friedman, C. Timothy Murphy, Amy 

Hollaway, Carole Heyward, Doron Kalir, Kenneth Kowalski, Stephen Lazarus, 

Kevin O’Neill, John Plecnik, Peter Sayegh, Daniel Dropko, Joseph Buckley, 

Christopher Maher, and Dennis Terez, as amici curiae, in support of applicant. 

_________________