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

re Application of Jia, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-468.] 

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-468

IN RE APPLICATION OF JIA. 

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

may be cited as In re Application of Jia, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-468.] 

Attorneys—Application for admission to the practice of law—Character and 

fitness—Violation of bar-exam rules by continuing to write after time is 

called—Application disapproved; reapplication permitted. 

(No. 2015-0538—Submitted June 10, 2015—Decided February 11, 2016.) 

ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and 

Fitness of the Supreme Court, No. 613. 

___________________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Lingyu Jia of Columbus, Ohio, is a 2013 graduate of the Case Western 

Reserve University School of Law and has applied as a candidate for admission to 

the Ohio bar. On the recommendation of the admissions committee of the 

Columbus Bar Association, the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness 

approved Jia’s character and fitness and permitted her to take the July 2014 bar 

exam. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness sua sponte 

investigated Jia’s character, fitness, and moral qualifications after the Board of Bar 

Examiners found that she had violated bar-exam rules by filling in one or more 

answers on the Multistate Bar Exam (“MBE”) after time was called during each of 

the morning and afternoon sessions on July 30, 2014. Despite a penalty imposed 

for her misconduct by the Board of Bar Examiners, Jia passed the bar exam. 

{¶ 3} After hearing Jia’s testimony and considering the evidence adduced 

at a panel hearing, a panel of the character-and-fitness board recommended that we 

disapprove Jia’s character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to the bar 

at this time but that she be permitted to submit an applicant’s affidavit and a 

completed supplemental character questionnaire on or after May 1, 2016. The 

panel further recommended that Jia be sworn in as an attorney if the board 

determines that the affidavit and questionnaire reflect no further character and 

fitness issues. The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and recommendation. 

{¶ 4} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and disapprove Jia’s character, 

fitness, and moral qualifications and her application for admission to the bar at this 

time but will permit her to seek admission on or after May 1, 2016. 

Facts and Procedural History 

{¶ 5} Jia applied and sat for the July 2014 bar exam. On the second day of 

the exam, the MBE portion, the day was divided into a morning session and an 

afternoon session. During each session, the applicants were provided with 100 

multiple-choice questions, for which they were to fill in a bubble on the provided 

answer sheet. 

{¶ 6} The applicants were seated two to a table, diagonally positioned with 

one applicant on each side of the table. As the morning session wound down, and 

consistent with the written and verbal instructions provided to all applicants, the 

director of the Office of Bar Admissions gave a warning five minutes before the 

session was to end. Jia received, heard, and understood the instructions. But when 
January Term, 2016 

3

the bar-exam official gave the stop command, Jia continued to fill in bubbles after 

time was called. 

{¶ 7} The male applicant sitting at an adjacent table to the left of and facing 

Jia testified that he looked over and observed Jia fill in about three bubbles after 

time was called. He did not immediately report his observation to a proctor, though 

he did ask a female applicant at his table—whom he did not know prior to the 

exam—if she had observed Jia writing after the command to stop. She replied that 

she had not. Jia does not dispute that she continued to write after time was called 

at the end of the morning session, but she testified that she filled in just one bubble. 

{¶ 8} During the afternoon session, the bar-exam official once again gave a 

five-minute warning before the end of the session. Five minutes later, she 

instructed the applicants to stop writing and place their materials in the upper-lefthand corner of the table. Because of the conversation between the male and female 

applicants at the adjacent table following the morning session, the two applicants 

looked in Jia’s direction to see if she would again write after time was called. Both 

of the applicants at the adjacent table testified that Jia filled in one bubble after time 

was called. The next morning, the female applicant advised a proctor of her 

observations. Jia testified that she was certain that she did not write past the allotted 

time during the afternoon session. 

{¶ 9} The third and final day of the bar exam was a morning-only session 

consisting of six essay questions that were distributed two at a time. The applicants 

were permitted to type their answers to the essay questions using a laptop computer 

program. 

{¶ 10} Because the female applicant reported her observations the previous 

day, Rosey White, a 13-year employee of the Office of Bar Admissions and a 

proctor for the exam, approached Jia’s table at the end of the time allotted for the 

first two essay questions. According to White’s testimony, after the instruction to 

exit the program had been given, she observed that Jia did not remove her hands 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

from the keyboard and let them hover over it as if she were going to continue 

typing—but she did not continue to type. White approached Jia, placed her hand 

on Jia’s shoulder or desk, and gave her a command to stop. After receiving the 

verbal command, Jia removed her hands from the keyboard and then exited the 

essay program. Neither the adjacent applicants nor the proctor observed Jia typing 

past the allotted time in either of the remaining essay sessions. 

{¶ 11} Following the bar exam, the male applicant sent an e-mail to the 

director of the Office of Bar Admissions advising her of his observations. His 

report triggered an investigation by the office and the Board of Bar Examiners. 

{¶ 12} A panel of the Board of Bar Examiners conducted a hearing on 

September 19, 2014, and heard testimony from Jia, both applicants at the adjacent 

table, the other applicant who was seated at Jia’s table, and the proctor who 

observed Jia on the third day of the exam. Based on that testimony, the panel found 

that Jia knowingly violated bar-exam rules by filling in one or more answers on the 

MBE after time was called at both the morning and afternoon sessions but that there 

was insufficient evidence to conclude that she violated any rule on the third day of 

the bar exam. The panel also noted that Jia expressed remorse and apologized to 

the board for her actions. 

{¶ 13} The Board of Bar Examiners adopted the panel report and imposed 

a 16.7-percent penalty on the MBE portion of Jia’s exam—a sanction comparable 

to those imposed on applicants who had been determined to have written after time 

was called on an essay question. Even with that penalty, Jia’s score was high 

enough to pass the bar exam, but the Board of Bar Examiners referred the matter to 

the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness for further review. 

{¶ 14} At the character-and-fitness panel hearing, Jia and the applicants 

from the adjacent table gave testimony largely consistent with their testimony 

before the Board of Bar Examiners. The panel found the testimony of the applicants 

from the adjacent table to be credible but could not determine whether Jia’s 
January Term, 2016 

5

testimony was intentionally inaccurate or whether her recollection of the events was 

clouded by the stress of taking the bar exam. Consistent with the conclusion of the 

Board of Bar Examiners, the character-and-fitness panel determined that Jia 

continued to write after time was called on two separate occasions on the second 

day of the bar exam and that she had, therefore, failed to prove that she currently 

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

the practice of law in Ohio. 

{¶ 15} Consequently, the panel recommended that we disapprove Jia’s 

pending application to be admitted to the Ohio bar. The panel further recommended 

that Jia be permitted to submit an applicant’s affidavit and a newly completed 

supplemental character questionnaire on or after May 1, 2016, and that Jia be sworn 

in as an attorney if the board determines that those documents reflect no further 

character and fitness issues. The Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness 

adopted the panel’s recommendation in its entirety. 

Disposition 

{¶ 16} 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 “justif[y] 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.

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

conducting their professional business affairs; 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 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

Professional Conduct; the ability to comply with deadlines and time constraints; 

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, 

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

IBILITY_REQUIREMENTS.pdf (accessed Dec. 29, 2015) (Nos. 3, 4, 5, 9, and 

10). Because the evidence shows that Jia continued to write after time was called 

on two separate occasions during the bar exam, we agree that she has failed to 

satisfy her burden. 

{¶ 18} Accordingly, we adopt the character-and-fitness board’s finding that 

in light of her conduct during the bar exam, Jia has failed to prove that she currently 

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

the practice of law in Ohio. Consequently, we disapprove Jia’s application at this 

time. However, Jia may submit an applicant’s affidavit and a newly completed 

supplemental character questionnaire to the Office of Bar Admissions on or after 

May 1, 2016, and if those documents reveal no further character and fitness issues, 

Jia may be sworn in as a member of the Ohio bar. 

Judgment accordingly. 

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

FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 

_________________ 

Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter, L.P.A., and Jonathan E. Coughlan, for 

applicant. 

Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., and Michael R. Thomas, for 

Columbus Bar Association. 

_________________