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

re Application of Scannell, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-583.] 

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. 2016-OHIO-583

IN RE APPLICATION OF SCANNELL. 

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

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

2016-Ohio-583.] 

Attorneys—Character and fitness—Failing to exercise good judgment in 

conducting personal legal affairs—Engaging in a pattern of dishonesty and 

misrepresentation involving lying to law-enforcement officers and court 

personnel—Application disapproved, with permission to reapply in two 

years on conditions. 

(No. 2015-0541—Submitted June 10, 2015—Decided February 23, 2016.) 

ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and 

Fitness of the Supreme Court, No. 556. 

___________________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} John Richard Scannell of Cortland, Ohio, is a 2013 graduate of the 

University of Cincinnati College of Law. He has applied to register as a candidate 

for admission to the practice of law in Ohio and to take the July 2013 bar exam. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

Two members of the Trumbull County Bar Association admissions committee 

interviewed Scannell on September 14, 2012, and provisionally recommended that 

he be approved as to his character and fitness to practice law. The full barassociation admissions committee issued a final report on May 13, 2013, 

recommending that he be approved. 

{¶ 2} On July 2, 2013, the Board of Commissioners on Character and 

Fitness announced that it would exercise its sua sponte investigatory authority in 

accordance with Gov.Bar R. I(10)(B)(2)(e) to further investigate his character and 

fitness to practice law, and on July 15, 2013, the Office of Bar Admissions sent 

Scannell a letter advising him that he would not be permitted to take the July 2013 

bar exam. Three weeks later, Scannell was cited for improper backing as the result 

of an automobile collision with a motorcycle. 

{¶ 3} A panel of the board conducted hearings on June 6 and September 26, 

2014—the first hearing focused on Scannell’s conduct following his August 2013 

automobile accident and the second focused on a fight he had with his girlfriend on 

a North Carolina beach in July 2012. The panel expressed some concerns regarding 

Scannell’s candor and honesty with regard to the fight on the beach. But based on 

its findings that he knowingly made false statements to a magistrate and prosecutor 

about his automobile accident, gave false sworn testimony at the panel hearing as 

to what had transpired in court, and took efforts to have the traffic ticket for his 

accident issued in his father’s name, the panel recommended that Scannell’s 

pending application be disapproved and that he not be permitted to reapply to take 

the Ohio bar exam. The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and 

recommendation. 

{¶ 4} Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we adopt the board’s findings 

of fact and disapprove Scannell’s pending bar exam application, but for the reasons 

that follow, we will permit him to reapply for admission to the Ohio bar in two 

years. 
January Term, 2016 

3

Summary of the Proceedings 

{¶ 5} In the early evening of August 5, 2013, Scannell drove from his home 

in Cortland, Ohio, to his girlfriend’s apartment complex in Cuyahoga Falls. Upon 

arriving at his destination, he pulled his truck in front of the driveway, stopped, put 

the truck in reverse, backed up, and collided with a motorcycle. Scannell 

immediately tried to assist the motorcyclist, Erik Richardson, who sustained minor 

injuries, and—worried about the negative impact the accident would have on his 

bar application—asked whether he could handle the incident privately by paying 

for the repairs to Richardson’s motorcycle with cash or a check. Richardson 

declined the offer, informed Scannell that he was a former law-enforcement officer, 

and then called the Cuyahoga Falls Police Department to report the accident. The 

police arrived minutes after the collision and cited Scannell for improper backing. 

{¶ 6} All the witnesses at the panel hearing admit the following facts are 

true: (1) Scannell was driving the truck that collided with the motorcycle, (2) no 

one other than Scannell was in the truck at the time of the accident, and (3) 

Scannell’s father was at home in Cortland, Ohio, at the time of the accident. But 

on August 12, 2013, Scannell and his father traveled from Courtland to Cuyahoga 

Falls to attend mayor’s court. When the magistrate called the case, both men 

approached the bench. Scannell’s father, with Scannell at his side, informed the 

magistrate that he (the father) was driving the truck on August 5, 2013, and that the 

ticket should be issued to him—not to his son. He explained that when the police 

arrived at the scene of the accident, he was “over in the bushes throwing up” due to 

nausea he suffered as a result of chemotherapy treatment. 

{¶ 7} Scannell did not inform the magistrate that his father’s story was a 

complete fabrication in that his father was not driving the truck, was not a passenger 

in the truck, and was not even in Cuyahoga Falls the night of the accident. Instead, 

he supported his father’s story by pointing to a map he had brought with him to 

indicate in which bushes his father had been throwing up. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

{¶ 8} In his testimony before the panel of the Board of Commissioners on 

Character and Fitness, Scannell suggested that he had tried to bring the truth to the 

court’s attention by insisting that he had told the magistrate that he had been “in 

control” of the truck and that he should be charged with the traffic offense. He also 

testified repeatedly that he had not told the magistrate that his father was driving on 

the night of the accident, but the panel found the testimony of Stacy McGowan, the 

prosecutor originally assigned to Scannell’s traffic case, to be more credible. 

McGowan acknowledged that Scannell’s father informed the magistrate that he was 

the one driving the truck that hit the motorcyclist, but she also recalled Scannell 

stating multiple times that his father was the driver. Further, she testified that when 

she asked Scannell why he had not told the police that his father was driving if that 

were the case, he told her that he was afraid his father would get arrested for driving 

while intoxicated because he was vomiting in the bushes. It is not clear whether 

any of Scannell’s statements to the mayor’s court magistrate were under oath. 

Before dismissing the traffic matter without prejudice, McGowan advised Scannell 

and his father that she was going to investigate the matter and that they would face 

criminal charges if they were lying about the incident. But she said that they both 

had assured her that Scannell’s father had been the driver. 

{¶ 9} At the panel hearing, Scannell and his father both testified that they 

returned to the police station and mayor’s court the week of August 19, 2013, in an 

effort to secure a ticket in Scannell’s name. But Diana Sudia-Smith, a Cuyahoga 

Falls Law Department employee, testified differently. She said that the father and 

son approached her as she was closing the courtroom late one afternoon and that 

both of them demanded that she dismiss the ticket against Scannell and reissue it 

against his father. Although both men interacted with Sudia-Smith, she reported 

that John Scannell spoke more than his father. Prosecutor John Chapman, who took 

over the case when McGowan went on vacation, testified that Scannell’s father 
January Term, 2016 

5

submitted a written police report on August 19, 2013, stating that he was the driver 

who hit the motorcyclist. 

{¶ 10} Ultimately, Scannell was charged with improper backing and 

obstructing official business in the Stow Municipal Court, and as part of a plea 

bargain, entered a plea of no contest to charges of improper backing and an 

amended charge of disorderly conduct. He was fined $250, $100 of which was 

suspended, and was sentenced to 30 days in jail, all suspended on the condition that 

he obey all laws for one year. Scannell’s father was charged with obstructing 

official business but pleaded no contest to an amended charge of falsification. He 

was fined $1,000, with $500 of the fine suspended, and was sentenced to 180 days 

in jail, all of which was suspended on the condition that he obey all laws for one 

year. 

{¶ 11} While acknowledging that Scannell presented a sad tale of a bright, 

hard-working young man with impressive letters of recommendation, the panel 

noted that during his June 2014 hearing, he was “combative, and at other times, 

rambling and unable to focus or respond to a straightforward question with a direct 

answer.” The panel also reported that “[h]e was uncommonly nervous throughout 

the hearing.” Based on the evidence adduced at that June hearing, the panel found 

that Scannell knowingly made false statements to the mayor’s court magistrate and 

prosecutor on August 12, 2013 (although it is not clear from the record whether 

those statements were made under oath), gave false testimony at the panel hearing 

as to what transpired in the mayor’s court, and gave false testimony regarding the 

efforts he and his father undertook to secure a traffic ticket in his father’s name. 

Moreover, the panel stated that it was “compelled to recognize that this case 

involves more than just the exercise of poor judgment” and that “Scannell’s actions 

unfortunately disclose dramatic and troubling questions about the Applicant’s 

character.” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

{¶ 12} The panel reconvened on September 26, 2014, to hear evidence 

relating to a July 2012 altercation that Scannell had with his girlfriend on a beach 

in North Carolina.1 In his initial report to the office of bar admissions, Scannell 

claimed that he and his girlfriend were charged with disorderly conduct after they 

engaged in horseplay, argued over seashells, and had a sand fight. 

{¶ 13} One week after he disclosed the incident, Scannell told his 

admissions-committee interviewers that witnesses and the authorities had had a 

“misunderstanding” as to whether there had been any physical violence during the 

incident. 

{¶ 14} At the panel hearing, Scannell testified that his girlfriend had slapped 

him on the head and threw sand at him at the end of an argument. He then embraced 

her in a bear hug to prevent her from hitting him and reminded her that during an 

earlier incident, she had promised him that he could have a “free slap” if she ever 

hit him again.2 He claimed that she told him to go ahead and that when he made 

the motion of slapping her, only the very tip of his finger grazed her chin. In her 

written statement to the park ranger, the girlfriend confirmed that she had told 

Scannell, “Go ahead, I’d like to see you do it,” but reported that he had struck her 

on the face with his open hand. Witness reports unequivocally supported the 

girlfriend’s version of events. 

{¶ 15} Although Scannell denied that he was intoxicated at the time of this 

incident, he admitted that he had been drinking. His girlfriend, in contrast, testified 

that they were both intoxicated, and the National Park Service incident record 

reflects that law-enforcement officers arrived and placed Scannell in handcuffs, 

took him off the beach, and placed him in a cruiser. When Scannell was removed 

 

1

 Although Scannell was represented by counsel at the first hearing, he proceeded pro se at the 

September 26, 2014 hearing. 

2

 The panel found that the couple had a “tempestuous and somewhat abusive relationship in the past 

where hitting one another was not uncommon.” Indeed, in the course of the hearing, one panel 

member characterized the relationship as “toxic.” 
January Term, 2016 

7

from that cruiser and placed in another vehicle to be transported to a detention 

center, he put his foot in the door to prevent the park ranger from closing it. His 

eyes were bloodshot, he was stumbling, and his speech was slurred. He refused to 

take a breathalyzer test and attempted to prevent his girlfriend from doing so, 

claiming that he was her lawyer—even though he had previously told the park 

rangers that he was a law student. 

{¶ 16} Although Scannell was charged with disorderly conduct as a result 

of the incident, the charges were dismissed after he successfully completed a oneyear pretrial diversion program that required him to complete 50 hours of 

community service and to submit to random substance-abuse testing. The panel 

acknowledged that it was not entirely clear what had transpired on the beach in July 

2012. In fairness to Scannell, the panel noted that he was not able to cross-examine 

the witnesses who provided statements to law-enforcement officers, though he 

questioned the accuracy of their statements and was adamant that they were at least 

several hundred yards away from him and his girlfriend at the time of the incident. 

And although Scannell’s sister and her fiancé were in the ocean less than 50 feet 

from the incident, the fiancé testified that neither of them saw or heard the 

altercation. The panel ultimately found that Scannell’s testimony was not credible 

and determined that at a minimum, his update to his application submitted in 

September 2012 describing what had happened as a “sand fight” raised additional 

questions about his candor. 

{¶ 17} On these facts, the panel found that Scannell failed to provide 

complete and accurate information concerning his past, made false statements, 

including omissions, and lacked candor during the admissions process. See

Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3)(g) and (h) and (4)(i). Based on these findings, the panel 

concluded that there is a significant deficiency in Scannell’s honesty and 

trustworthiness. Therefore, the panel recommended that his application to register 

as a candidate for admission to the practice of law be disapproved and that he not 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8

be permitted to reapply. The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and its 

recommendations. 

Disposition 

{¶ 18} 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.

{¶ 19} Applicants must establish the ability to exercise good judgment in 

conducting their professional business; the ability to conduct themselves with a 

high degree of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness in their professional 

relationships and with respect to all legal obligations; the ability to conduct 

themselves with respect for and in accordance with the law and the Ohio Rules of 

Professional Conduct; the ability to avoid acts that exhibit disregard for the health, 

safety, and welfare of others; and the ability to conduct themselves professionally 

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

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

Law, Requirement Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10, 

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

IBILITY_REQUIREMENTS.pdf (accessed Jan. 12, 2016). 

{¶ 20} The evidence shows that Scannell failed to exercise good judgment 

in conducting his personal legal affairs, failed to conduct himself with a high degree 

of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness, and, in fact, engaged in a pattern of 

dishonesty and misrepresentation that involved lying to law-enforcement officers 

and court personnel—a pattern that continued throughout these admissions 
January Term, 2016 

9

proceedings. Therefore, we find that that he has failed to carry his burden of 

proving that he presently possesses the requisite character, fitness, and moral 

qualifications to practice law. See In re Application of Bagne, 102 Ohio St.3d 182, 

2004-Ohio-2070, 808 N.E.2d 372 (application denied and applicant permitted to 

reapply in three years based on false statements to law-enforcement personnel and 

false testimony during admissions hearings in both Michigan and Ohio); In re 

Application of Cvammen, 102 Ohio St.3d 13, 2004-Ohio-1584, 806 N.E.2d 498, 

¶ 22 (permanently denying application to register as candidate for admission to the 

Ohio bar because ethical infractions so permeated the admissions process that the 

applicant’s honesty and integrity were shown to be intrinsically suspect). 

{¶ 21} Accordingly, we disapprove Scannell’s pending application to sit for 

the bar exam, but we will permit him to reapply in two years, provided that he (1) 

submits to a mental-health evaluation by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist 

selected by the board, (2) submits a new application to register as a candidate for 

admission to the practice of law that includes a report of the findings of his mentalhealth evaluation, and (3) completes a new character and fitness examination, 

including an investigation by the National Conference of Bar Examiners. 

Judgment accordingly. 

PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., 

concur. 

 O’CONNOR, C.J., dissents and would not permit the applicant to reapply. 

_________________ 

John Richard Scannell, pro se. 

William J. Danso, Trumbull County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for 

Trumbull County Bar Association. 

_________________