[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as In re Application of Heckman , Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-2474.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to f ormal revision before it is pu blished in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are reques ted to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohi o, 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.

S LIP O PINION N O
. 2021-O HIO -2474
I N RE A PPLICATION OF H ECKMAN
. [Until this opinion appears in t he Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as In re Application of Heckman , Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-2474.] Attorneys—Character and fitne ss—Applications to register as candidate for admission to practice of law—Past criminal conduct—Lack of candor— Application disapproved and applicant permitted to reapply for admission at a later date, on conditions. (No. 2021-0256—Submitted May 12, 2021—Decided July 22, 2021.)
O N R EPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Cha racter and Fitness of the Supreme Court, No. 776.

_______________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Applicant, William Michael Heckman, of Montague, Michigan, is a 2015 graduate of the Western Michigan University Cooley Law Sch ool. He applied to register as a candidate for admission to the practice of law in Ohio in July 2019.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 Although he applied to take the September/October 2020 bar exam , he withdrew that application but proceeded wit h the character-and-fitness r eview process. {¶ 2} Two members of the Toledo Bar Association’s admissions committe e interviewed Heckman in January 2020 and recommended that his ap plication be
denied. The bar association’s seven-member review committee th en conducted a second interview of Heckman. Citing its concerns regarding Hec kman’s emotional instability, alcohol usage, and lack of candor regarding his un successful applications for admission to the Michigan and Indiana bars, th e admissions committee recommended that Heckman’s application be disapproved . Heckman appealed that recommendation to the Board of Commissioners on C haracter and
Fitness. See Gov.Bar R. I(14). {¶ 3} A three-member panel of the boa rd conducted a hearing on Januar y 22, 2021. After considering Heckma n’s testimony and exhibits, the panel
concluded that he had failed to present clear and convincing ev idence that he currently possesses the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications to practice law in Ohio. The panel recommended that (1) his appli cation be denied, (2) he be permitted to reapply no earlier than January 15, 2023 , and (3) he be required to submit to an evaluation by the Ohio Lawyers Assista nce Program (“OLAP”) and successfully complet e any treatment program recomm ended by OLAP before reapplying for admission to the Ohio bar. The boar d adopted the panel’s report a nd recommendation.
Facts Alcohol-Related Offenses {¶ 4} In 1990, Heckman was arrested in Arizona for driving while unde r the
influence of alcohol. The follo wing year, he was convicted in Florida for public consumption of alcohol. Several years later, he was charged in Michigan with driving while having a suspende d driver’s license, although the reason for the license suspension is not c lear from the record.January Term, 2021

3 {¶ 5} In 2014, Heckman was charged in Arizona with felony aggravated
assault and misdemea nor disorderly conduct/domestic violence fo r striking his teenaged son during a social gat hering at his sister’s home. T he police report stated that Heckman had been drinking al cohol before the incident and had to be restrained by his relatives. He pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct/dome stic violence, for which the court imposed a 60-da y jail sentence (which, accordin g to Heckman, was suspended) and 30 months of probation. He was released from pr obation after approximately 21 months. Heckman w as also charged in Michigan with assault in 2016 for allegedly striking a phone out of the hand of his othe r teenaged son. No finding of guilt was entered regarding that charge because Heck man successfully completed probation and 26 weeks of classes concerning domestic violence. {¶ 6} In addition to those criminal matters, Heckman’s ex-wife, who i s a Michigan attorney, obtained four civil protection orders agains t Heckman following their 2007 divorce. One o f those orders required Hec kman to refrain from consuming alcohol when his children were in his care. {¶ 7} At the panel hearing, Heckman argued that two of his prior convictions relating to his alc ohol use—including his convictio n for driving while under the influence of alcohol—should not be held against him b ecause they occurred nearly 30 years ago. He testified that the conduct gi ving rise to his 2014 conviction for disorderly conduc t/domestic violence and his 201 6 assault charge
involved mistakes that he had made in the heat of the moment wh ile attempting to discipline his sons, and during his interview with the bar asso ciation’s sevenmember review committee, he sugge sted that the 2016 assault cha rge had been motivated by his ex-wife’s animosity toward him. Heckman state d in a letter to the board that he had successfully c ompleted his domestic-violence- prevention classes
and had not had an incident invol ving his children since 2016. {¶ 8} Heckman’s sons submitted affidav its in support of his applicati on, attesting that they enjoy a l oving relationship with him. One of Heckman’s sonsS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 averred that Heckman is maki ng progress in dealing with the dif ficulties in his life and has taken steps toward ac cepting responsibility for his act ions. Heckman’s other son expressed his belief that Heckman understands the nat ure of his past
conduct and has learned from it. After the panel hearing, a fr iend of Heckman’s who is a Michigan attorney submitted an affidavit expressing hi s opinion that Heckman has learned from his past mistakes and possesses the ch aracter and fitness necessary to practice law. {¶ 9} Although Heckman has generally den ied that he has any problem w ith alcohol, the board noted that in 2015, Heckman obtained an eval uation from the Michigan Lawyers and Judges Assistance Program (“LJAP”) in conj unction with his efforts to gain admission to the Michigan bar and to secure his release from probation in Arizona. The LJAP evaluator rejected Heckman’s de nials regarding his problem with alcohol, noting th at he had twice been arreste d for alcohol-related offenses in the early 1990s and that he had been drinking alcoh ol immediately
before he was arrested for str iking his son in November 2014. Based upon her
clinical review and the informa tion provided to her, the evalua tor diagnosed
Heckman with a moderate alcohol -use disorder. She recommended that he complete a structured substance- abuse program, a program for do mestic-violence offenders, and a psychological evaluation to assess for the pre sence of a personality
disorder. {¶ 10} The board acknowledged that Heckman has made strides in understanding some of the factors that contributed to his past behavior and has worked to maintain a loving relationship with his children. He ckman also submitted a favorable report from a counselor whom he had seen about 15 times in the previous five years, and a report following a March 2020 substance-abusedisorder assessment stating that he did not meet the criteria f or a diagnosis under the DSM-5 ( Diagnosis and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th Ed.2013))
and that no treatment was recomme nded. However, Heckman did no t persuade theJanuary Term, 2021

5 board that he had meaningfully addressed the negative role of a lcohol in his life, because he presented no evidence that he had entered into a mon itoring program or had otherwise followed the recommendations made by the LJAP eva luator and he continued to deny that his al cohol use was a problem.
Candor {¶ 11} In addition to its concerns about Heckman’s alcohol use, the bo ard found that the record is replete with instances in which he was less than candid
about his criminal offenses. For example, Heckman failed to di sclose his
November 2014 arrest to his la w school until July 2015—approxim ately six months after he graduated. In a written res ponse to that disclosure, the l aw school informed him that “[b]ecause you would have been placed on administrativ e probation for a felony arrest, and because this i s a late disclosure, your stat us has been changed to administrative probation retroa ctive to November 14, 2014.” No twithstanding that notification, Heckman denied on hi s Ohio registration applicati on that he had ever been subjected to discipline by any law school. And as the boa rd noted, although Heckman had disclosed in his registration application that he f ailed the Michigan bar exam, he waited until his interview with the bar associatio n’s seven-member review committee to divulge that Michigan had refused to allow him to retake the exam on character-and-fitness grounds. Heckman could not recal l during the hearing whether he had ever received written confirmation of th at ruling but he
testified that it had b een orally conveyed to him. 1 {¶ 12} Heckman testified that his o missions, including his failure to timely report his arrest in Arizona to his law school, were not intent ional and that he simply forgot to disclose the informati on. But the board did not find his testimony

1. The record in this case does not contain any evidence that Heckman’s Michigan bar application was denied on character-and-fitness grounds. The Michigan LJAP report states that the State Bar of Michigan Committee on Character and Fitness had expressed co ncerns regarding the numerous personal protection orders obtained by Heckman’s ex-wife, his N ovember 2014 arrest for striking his son, and his failure to disclose and update information per taining to his legal history.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

6 persuasive and found that he did nothing to satisfy its lingeri ng concerns regarding his lack of candor. Moreover, the record shows that in Septemb er 2018, Indiana denied Heckman’s application for admission to its bar on charac ter-and-fitness grounds and will allow him to r eapply for its July 2023 bar exa m. Disposition {¶ 13} An applicant for admission to the Ohio bar bears the burden of proving “by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant po ssesses the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to t he practice of law.” Gov.Bar R. I(13)(D)(1). An applicant may be approved for admis sion if the applicant satisfies the essential eligibility requirements for the practice of law as defined by the board and demonstr ates that “the applicant’s rec ord of conduct justifies the trust of clients, adversaries, courts, and others .” Gov.Bar R. I(13)(D)(3). {¶ 14} “A record manifesting a significant deficiency in the honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, or reliability of an applicant may constitute a basis for disapproval.” Id. In determining whether the record demonstrates such a deficiency, we consider a numbe r of factors identified in Gov.B ar R. I(13)(D)(3), including the following factors th at are present here: evidence of (1) the applicant’s untreated chemical dependency, (2 ) the applicant’s violations o f his or her law school’s honor code, (3) the app licant’s failure to provide com plete and accurate information concerning the appli cant’s past, (4) the applicant’ s false statements (including omissions), (5) the a pplicant’s acts involving disho nesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and (6) the denial of the applicant’s adm ission to the bar in another jurisdiction on char acter-and-fitness grounds. See Gov.Bar R. I(13)(D)(3)(b), (d), (g), (h), (i), and (n). We also consider the age of the applicant at the time of the conduct, the r ecency of the conduct, the rel iability of the information concerning the conduc t, the seriousness of the cond uct, the cumulative effect of the conduct, evidence of the applicant’s rehabilitati on, the candor of theJanuary Term, 2021

7 applicant in the admissions process, and the materiality of any omissions or misrepresentations by the applicant. See Gov.Bar R. I(13)(D)(4)(a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), (i), and (j). {¶ 15} “Evidence of false statements, including material omissions, an d lack of candor in the admissions process reflect poorly on an a pplicant’s present character, fitness, and moral qualifications.” In re Application of Panepinto , 84 Ohio St.3d 397, 399, 704 N.E.2d 564 (1999); In re Application of Cvammen , 102 Ohio St.3d 13, 2004-Ohio-1584, 806 N.E.2d 498, ¶ 22. “Even one incomplete answer can lead to the disapproval of an admission application if the applicant does not fully and honestly explain when the opportunity arises.” In re Application of Bagne , 102 Ohio St.3d 182, 2004-Ohio-2070, 808 N.E.2d 372, ¶ 23. He re, in
addition to Heckman’s material o missions during the character-a nd-fitness review process, there are lingering conc erns that he has an untreated alcohol-use disorder. Upon consideration of the record a nd the applicable rules, we a gree with the board that Heckman has failed to carry his burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he currently possesses the requisite character, f itness, and moral qualifications for admission t o the practice of law in Ohio. {¶ 16} Accordingly, we adopt the board’s report and disapprove Heckman ’s pending registration application. Heckman shall be permitted t o reapply for admission to the Ohio bar no earlier than January 15, 2023, and before then shall be required to submit proof that he has obtained an OLAP evalua tion and successfully completed any treatment program recommended as a r esult of that
evaluation. Judgment accordingly.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and K ENNEDY , F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , S TEWART , and B RUNNER , JJ., concur.

_________________ William Michael Heckman, pro se.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

8 Joseph P. Dawson, for the T oledo Bar Association.

_________________