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

re Application of Vanderhide, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-866.] 

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-866

IN RE APPLICATION OF VANDERHIDE.

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

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

2016-Ohio-866.] 

Attorneys—Application to register as a candidate for admission to the practice of 

law—Failure to appear for character-and-fitness hearing—Application 

denied; reapplication permitted. 

(No. 2015-1359—Submitted October 14, 2015—Decided March 10, 2016.) 

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

Supreme Court, No. 618. 

_______________________ 

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Applicant, Bradley Daniel Vanderhide, is a candidate for admission 

to the practice of law in Ohio. The Board of Commissioners on Character and 

Fitness recommends that we disapprove his application because he failed to appear 

for proceedings intended to assess his character, fitness, and moral qualifications to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

practice law. On review, we adopt the board’s recommendation to disapprove 

Vanderhide’s application. 

{¶ 2} Vanderhide initially applied to take the July 2014 bar examination. 

He sat for that exam but did not pass. He subsequently applied to take the February 

2015 exam. 

{¶ 3} When the board reviewed Vanderhide’s application and the report of 

the National Conference of Bar Examiners (“NCBE”), it discovered that he had 

failed to disclose certain facts about his background, including a failed class in his 

final semester at Boston University and a period of probation for an in-dorm alcohol 

violation at Boston University. When asked about these omissions, Vanderhide 

stated that his lack of disclosure was an oversight. 

{¶ 4} Of greater concern were two employment situations that Vanderhide 

failed to fully disclose. The first involved Vanderhide’s work as a law clerk for 

Christian G. Montroy from June to October 2010. While Montroy did not 

technically terminate his employment, a dispute arose when Vanderhide failed to 

timely submit a memo that was assigned to him. Nine days after the memo was 

due, Montroy requested it and inquired whether Vanderhide had merely failed to 

timely submit the memo or whether he failed to timely complete the work. Copies 

of the e-mail exchange Montroy submitted to the NCBE show that Vanderhide 

claimed to have timely prepared but forgotten to send a timely e-mail with the 

completed memo. In a separate e-mail, Vanderhide claimed that a computer 

problem prevented him from providing metadata and other documentation that 

Montroy requested to evaluate the veracity of his explanation. The panel of the 

Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness assigned to hear the case noted 

that those e-mails also call into question the veracity of Vanderhide’s claim that he 

was unaware of any dispute regarding his work. Although Vanderhide obtained a 

law clerk position at another firm in June 2014, the board noted that that 
January Term, 2016 

3

employment appeared to have been terminated in September 2014 for deficient 

work product and untimely completion of projects. 

{¶ 5} The panel could not further develop the record on these issues because 

Vanderhide failed to appear for his June 9, 2015 panel hearing. The panel report 

reflects that Vanderhide was aware of the hearing and that prior to adjourning the 

hearing, the panel attempted to contact him by phone, e-mail, and text message 

before adjourning. Therefore, the panel found that Vanderhide failed to cooperate 

in the investigation and recommended that his application be disapproved. The 

board adopted the panel’s recommendation. 

{¶ 6} Having reviewed the board’s report and the record, we agree that 

Vanderhide has not demonstrated the requisite character, fitness, and moral 

qualifications under Gov.Bar R. I(11) to be admitted to the bar. His failure to 

appear for a hearing is sufficient grounds for disapproving his application. See

Gov.Bar R. I(12)(C)(6) (failure to fully cooperate in the character-and-fitness 

investigation may be grounds for a recommendation of disapproval). 

{¶ 7} We therefore accept the board’s recommendation to disapprove 

Vanderhide’s application. Vanderhide may reapply for admission to the practice 

of law in Ohio by (1) filing an Application to Register as a Candidate for Admission 

to the Practice of Law and an Application to Take the Bar Examination, and (2) 

upon reapplication, undergoing a complete character-and-fitness investigation, 

including an investigation and report by the National Conference of Bar Examiners, 

in order to determine whether he possesses the requisite character, fitness, and 

moral qualifications for admission to the practice of law in Ohio. 

Judgment accordingly. 

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

O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 

LANZINGER, J., concurs in judgment only. 

_________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

Bradley Daniel Vanderhide, pro se. 

Murray & Black, Ltd., L.P.A., and Michael D. Murray, for the Lake County 

Bar Association. 

_________________