Court Opinion

ID: 9901124
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-21 14:07:37.030153+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:26.681332
License: Public Domain

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as In
re Application of Cline, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4169.]

                                         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. 2023-OHIO-4169
                            IN RE APPLICATION OF CLINE.
  [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it
may be cited as In re Application of Cline, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-4169.]
Attorneys—Character and fitness—Application for admission to practice of law—
         Applicant failed to establish present character, fitness, and moral
         qualifications by clear and convincing evidence—Application disapproved
         and applicant permitted to reapply for admission at later date.
 (No. 2023-1002—Submitted October 24, 2023—Decided November 21, 2023.)
   ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness of the
                                Supreme Court, No. 858.
                              _______________________
         Per Curiam.
         {¶ 1} Applicant, Jared Michael Cline, of Uniontown, Ohio, is a 2022
graduate of the University of Akron School of Law. Cline applied to register as a
candidate for admission to the Ohio bar and to take the February and July 2023 bar
exams.
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

       {¶ 2} Two members of the Akron Bar Association Admissions Committee
interviewed Cline in August 2022, and the committee issued a provisional report
recommending that his character and fitness be approved. Based on Cline’s
disclosure of an October 2021 citation for operating a motor vehicle under the
influence of alcohol (“OVI”) and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, the
Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness invoked its authority, sua sponte,
to investigate his character, fitness, and moral qualifications. See Gov.Bar R.
I(12)(B)(2)(e). At the board’s request, Cline submitted to an assessment conducted
by the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”) in October 2022. He was
diagnosed with alcohol- and cannabis-use disorders and entered into a two-year
OLAP contract on October 26, 2022.
       {¶ 3} In April 2023, a three-member panel of the board conducted a
character-and-fitness hearing, during which it heard testimony from Cline.
Thereafter, the panel issued a report finding that based on his failure to comply with
his OLAP contract, Cline had failed to establish his present character, fitness, and
moral qualifications by clear and convincing evidence. The panel recommended
that Cline’s application be disapproved and that he be permitted to reapply for the
Ohio bar exam no earlier than September 1, 2023. The board adopted the panel’s
report and recommendation in August 2023, and no objections have been filed. For
the reasons that follow, we disapprove Cline’s application and will permit him to
reapply to take the Ohio bar exam no earlier than December 1, 2023.
                                        Facts
       {¶ 4} During his character-and-fitness hearing, Cline testified that his OVI
offense occurred after he attended a Halloween party in 2021. He had been drinking
more heavily than usual in the weeks leading up to the OVI offense due to the
ending of a three-year relationship. Cline claimed that he had recognized that he
had a problem and had sought counseling even before he received the OVI citation.
As a result of the OVI offense, Cline attended an alcohol-diversion class through a

                                          2
                                January Term, 2023

court-ordered diversion program. He reported that he had stopped using marijuana
and had worked on “drastically reducing [his] drinking.”
       {¶ 5} Cline testified that he submitted to an OLAP assessment in October
2022 as directed by the board. Following his assessment, he was informed that he
had been diagnosed with substance- and alcohol-use disorders because he had
engaged in a dangerous activity while under the influence of alcohol, namely his
OVI, and had exhibited signs of craving alcohol when he was not drinking. Cline
entered into a two-year OLAP contract that required him to submit to random drug
and alcohol testing, check in weekly with OLAP, attend at least two Alcoholics
Anonymous (“AA”) meetings each week, and submit proof of his AA attendance
to OLAP on a monthly basis. He stated that at OLAP’s direction, he submitted to
a separate anxiety and depression assessment but was not diagnosed with either
disorder.
       {¶ 6} According to Cline, he began to see a substance-abuse counselor and
had mistakenly believed that she would determine the number of AA meetings that
he needed to attend each week. He also admitted that he had not attended AA as
frequently as his OLAP contract required, claiming that he could not relate to the
other AA participants and that attending the meetings made him feel anxious. Cline
stated that by February 2023, he was attending the number of AA meetings required
by his OLAP contract.
       {¶ 7} Cline’s OLAP contract also required him to submit to random alcohol
screenings. Cline testified that he successfully complied with that requirement until
December 16, 2022, when he was notified that his testing account was suspended
for nonpayment. He stated that he still reported for testing but that he asked to defer
the $60 payment for each test because he was not working.
       {¶ 8} Cline tested positive for alcohol on December 26, 2022—two months
to the day after he entered into his OLAP contract. He told the panel that he
“slipped up” by drinking “a couple [of] beers” with his family, some of whom were

                                          3
                            SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

completely unaware of his OLAP contract, when they gathered for the first time
following the death of his grandfather.        The panel noted that Cline had
acknowledged that he should not have violated his OLAP contract.
       {¶ 9} Cline testified that as a result of his noncompliance with his contract
due to his December 26 positive test, OLAP suggested in late January or early
February 2023 that he enter an intensive outpatient therapy program (“IOP”). He
entered the program in late February or early March, attending IOP meetings four
days a week and individual counseling every other week. OLAP also required him
to attend three AA meetings per week. Cline testified that he is engaged in his IOP
and compliant with the requirements of the OLAP contract, but he admitted that, at
best, he had been compliant for just a few weeks before his character-and-fitness
hearing. Although Cline testified that he had submitted proof of his AA attendance
to OLAP, OLAP has denied receiving any documentation regarding either his AA
attendance or his participation in the IOP—and consequently has deemed him not
in compliance with his OLAP contract as of March 31, 2023.
       {¶ 10} Cline characterized his OVI offense as a “poor decision” and
suggested that he would not repeat his mistake because it had cost him money,
caused him to lose his car, and delayed his career. The panel noted that it was
apparent throughout Cline’s testimony that he did not feel that he had an alcohol-
use disorder and found the requirements of his OLAP contract to be overly
burdensome. However, he admitted that he had “underestimated the consequences”
of failing to comply with his OLAP contract, and the panel acknowledged that at
the time of his character-and-fitness hearing, he appeared to be willing to do
whatever was necessary to sit for the bar exam.
       {¶ 11} The Akron Bar Association expressed no doubt about Cline’s
character, but based on his noncompliance with his OLAP contract, it
recommended that his application be disapproved. The panel and board agreed
with the bar association and recommended that Cline’s application be disapproved,

                                         4
                                 January Term, 2023

that he be permitted to reapply no earlier than September 1, 2023, and that he be
required to submit proof that he has been in continuous compliance with his OLAP
contract since the date of his character-and-fitness hearing.
                                     Disposition
       {¶ 12} An applicant for admission to the bar bears the burden of proving by
clear and convincing evidence that the applicant possesses the requisite character,
fitness, and moral qualifications for admission. Gov.Bar R. I(13)(D)(1). An
applicant may be approved for admission if the applicant satisfies the essential
eligibility requirements for the practice of law as defined by the board and
demonstrates that “the applicant’s record of conduct justifies the trust of clients,
adversaries, courts, and others.” Gov.Bar R. I(13)(D)(3).
       {¶ 13} A record that manifests a significant deficiency in the honesty,
trustworthiness, diligence, or reliability of an applicant may constitute grounds for
disapproval. Id. In determining whether the record demonstrates such a deficiency,
we consider a number of factors set forth in Gov.Bar R. I(13)(D)(3). Among those
factors are whether there is evidence of an existing and untreated drug or alcohol
dependency.     Gov.Bar R. I(13)(D)(3)(b).         In determining the weight and
significance to give an applicant’s prior conduct, we consider several factors,
including the age of the applicant at the time of the conduct, the recency of the
conduct, the seriousness of the conduct, the factors underlying the conduct, whether
there is evidence of rehabilitation, whether the applicant has made positive social
contributions since the conduct, and the candor of the applicant in the admissions
process. See Gov.Bar R. I(13)(D)(4)(a), (b), (d), (e), (g), (h), and (i).
       {¶ 14} In this case, Cline’s OVI offense occurred during his second year of
law school. And as part of the admissions process, the board requested that he
undergo an OLAP assessment in October 2022, during his final semester of law
school. Cline complied with that request and entered into an OLAP contract, but
according to his own testimony, he failed to comply with the terms of that contract

                                           5
                            SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

for nearly five months. Moreover, he failed to submit evidence of his eventual
compliance to OLAP—and also to the board as it sought to determine whether he
was fit to sit for the Ohio bar exam. Given these facts, we agree that Cline has
failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he currently possesses the
requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to the practice
of law in Ohio.
                                   Conclusion
       {¶ 15} Accordingly, we disapprove Cline’s pending application to take the
Ohio bar exam and will permit him to reapply for the bar exam no earlier than
December 1, 2023. Upon submitting a new application to take the bar exam, Cline
shall be required to submit documentation of his full compliance with his OLAP
contract.
                                                            Judgment accordingly.
       KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER,
and DETERS, JJ., concur.
                               _________________
       Jared Michael Cline, pro se.
       Creveling & Creveling, Michael A. Creveling, for the Akron Bar
Association.
                               _________________

                                         6