[Cite as In re Application of Martin, 134 Ohio St.3d 154, 2012-Ohio-5427.] 

IN RE APPLICATION OF MARTIN. 

[Cite as In re Application of Martin, 134 Ohio St.3d 154, 2012-Ohio-5427.] 

Applicant for admission to practice of law currently lacks the requisite character, 

fitness, and moral qualifications—Applicant may reapply to take a later 

bar examination. 

(No. 2012-0426—Submitted May 9, 2012—Decided November 28, 2012.) 

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

Supreme Court, No. 513. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Ebonie Michelle Martin of Columbus, Ohio, graduated from 

Capital University Law School in May 2011. She applied as a candidate for 

admission to the Ohio bar in September 2010 and subsequently applied to take the 

July 2011 bar exam. After an admissions committee recommended that her 

application be disapproved, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Character 

and Fitness held a hearing to address the issues identified in the report by the 

admissions committee. The panel and board recommend that we disapprove 

Martin’s application based on her present lack of the requisite character, fitness, 

and moral qualifications, and permit her to apply to take the July 2014 bar exam. 

We adopt the board’s recommendation to disapprove the pending application and 

to permit Martin to apply to take the July 2014 bar exam. 

Summary of Proceedings 

{¶ 2} Two separate panels of the Columbus Bar Association admissions 

committee interviewed Martin in 2011. On June 30, 2011, the admissions 

committee issued a report recommending that Martin not be approved as to her 

character, fitness, and moral qualifications to practice law in Ohio. Martin 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

appealed the committee’s recommendation to the Board of Commissioners on 

Character and Fitness pursuant to Gov.Bar R. I(12)(B). 

{¶ 3} A panel of the board conducted a formal hearing and issued a 

report identifying three areas of concern that led the panel to recommend that we 

disapprove Martin’s application based on her character and fitness at this time. 

The board adopted the panel’s report in its entirety. Neither Martin nor the 

admissions committee objects to the board’s findings or recommendation. 

{¶ 4} The panel and board first express concern about Martin’s 

truthfulness based on her explanation that she had failed her real-property class 

during her first semester of law school because she had failed to place her 

assigned exam number on the exam. She claimed that she had written the number 

on the palm of her hand but that her sweaty palms had rendered the number 

illegible. The admissions committee’s investigation, however, revealed that while 

Martin may have lost some points based on her failure to use her assigned exam 

number, she had also performed poorly on the exam. 

{¶ 5} The second area of concern relates to Martin’s handling of her 

finances. Although Martin owed only $15,000 in undergraduate student loans 

when she started law school, she amassed a student-loan balance of approximately 

$150,000 for tuition and living expenses while attending Capital University Law 

School, despite receiving scholarships to pay all but $18,000 a year for school, in 

addition to public assistance. At the time of the hearing, her loans were in 

forbearance. The panel and board found, however, that by obtaining financial 

counseling, creating a budget, and obtaining employment as a paralegal, Martin 

showed that she is beginning to address this issue. 

{¶ 6} The third and most serious area of concern identified by the board 

relates to Martin’s lack of truthfulness in her explanation of a 2008 traffic stop 

that resulted in her being charged with providing false information to a police 

officer to avoid a citation, driving with an expired driver’s license, and failing to 
January Term, 2012 

3 

restrain a child in a car seat. Martin testified, and the police officer’s testimony 

confirmed, that she had been pulled over because the officer believed that the 

windows of her vehicle were too darkly tinted—though she was never charged 

with an offense related to the window-tinting. 

{¶ 7} At the hearing, Martin admitted that when she was pulled over, she 

did not have her driver’s license with her and the license had expired more than 

six months before her traffic stop. She testified that when the officer asked her 

for her Social Security number, she gave him her mother’s Social Security 

number instead, but she claimed that she had done so by mistake, due to the stress 

of the situation and the fact that she regularly gave her mother’s Social Security 

number in dealing with her mother’s health issues. But the officer testified that in 

addition to giving him her mother’s Social Security number, Martin also gave him 

her mother’s name and date of birth. 

{¶ 8} On her bar-exam application, Martin reported that the providingfalse-information charge was due to her telling the officer that the child in the 

vehicle during the traffic stop was her daughter when it was actually her 

goddaughter. At the hearing, Martin maintained that at the time she filled out her 

bar-exam application, she believed that the confusion over the child’s identity was 

the basis of the falsification charge against her. 

{¶ 9} Although the falsification and child-restraint charges were dropped 

and Martin pleaded guilty to the no-operator’s-license charge, the panel and board 

believed the officer’s version of the events as conveyed through his testimony and 

the report he prepared at the time of the traffic stop. Moreover, they believed that 

Martin had used her mother’s name, birth date, and Social Security number in an 

attempt to avoid responsibility for driving with an expired driver’s license. 

{¶ 10} The panel and board were also troubled by Martin’s explanation 

about why the car she was driving at the time of the stop was not registered in her 

name, although she claimed that she had purchased it from her friend. The panel 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4 

asked Martin to submit additional documentation regarding the transaction after 

the hearing, and the panel’s report states that that documentation demonstrates 

that “the transaction was completely different than the testimony provided by the 

Applicant at the hearing.” That documentation, however, has not been 

transmitted to this court as part of the record. 

{¶ 11} Citing Martin’s testimony concerning the false information given 

to the police officer during her 2008 traffic stop and her apparently false 

testimony about her purchase of the car, the panel and board expressed concern 

about her truthfulness. Based upon those facts, they submit that Martin does not 

presently possess the character, fitness, and moral qualifications necessary for 

admission to the bar of Ohio. Therefore, they recommend that we disapprove 

Martin’s application and permit her to reapply for the July 2014 bar exam. 

Disposition 

{¶ 12} 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. 

{¶ 13} Based upon the foregoing, we agree that Martin has failed to prove 

that she currently possesses the requisite character, fitness, and moral 

qualifications for admission to the practice of law. We therefore adopt the 

board’s findings of fact and disapprove Martin’s pending application to take the 

bar examination. Martin may apply to take the July 2014 bar examination by 

filing a new application to register as a candidate for admission to the practice of 

law and an application to take the bar examination. Upon reapplication, she shall 
January Term, 2012 

5 

undergo a complete character and fitness investigation, including an investigation 

and report by the National Conference of Bar Examiners and a review and 

interview by the appropriate local bar association admissions committee. 

Judgment accordingly. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, CUPP, 

and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 

LANZINGER, J., concurs in judgment only. 

__________________ 

Leppla Associates and Gary James Leppla, for applicant. 

Loveland & Brosius, L.L.C., and William L. Loveland, for the Columbus 

Bar Association. 

______________________