Court Opinion

ID: 9890068
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-12 13:07:19.78428+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:03:06.989560
License: Public Domain

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as In
re Application of Lu, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3684.]

                                         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-3684
                              IN RE APPLICATION OF LU.
  [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it
  may be cited as In re Application of Lu, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3684.]
Attorneys—Character and fitness—Application for admission to the 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 a later date.
     (No. 2023-0390—Submitted June 27, 2023—Decided October 12, 2023.)
   ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness of the
                                Supreme Court, No. 849.
                                  __________________
        Per Curiam.
        {¶ 1} Applicant, Peter Boya Lu, of Kennewick, Washington, is a 2018
graduate of Columbia Law School. Lu passed the New York bar exam, and in
August 2019, he was admitted to practice law in Washington by transferring his
Uniform Bar Examination (“UBE”) score. In November 2021, he applied for
                            SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

admission to the practice of law in Ohio by transferred UBE score, see Gov.Bar R.
I(11), and received a certificate to practice law in Ohio pending admission, see
Gov.Bar R. I(19).
       {¶ 2} Two members of the Akron Bar Association Admissions Committee
interviewed Lu in August 2022, and the committee issued a final report
recommending approval of Lu’s character, fitness, and moral qualifications for
admission to the practice of law. The Board of Commissioners on Character and
Fitness, however, invoked its authority, sua sponte, to investigate Lu’s character,
fitness, and moral qualifications. See Gov.Bar R. I(12)(B)(2)(e). The board
recommends that we disapprove Lu’s application and permit him to reapply for
admission no earlier than January 2024. For the following reasons, we adopt the
board’s recommendation.
                                       Facts
       {¶ 3} In his application for admission to the practice of law in Ohio, Lu
disclosed that he had worked as a deputy prosecuting attorney at the Benton County
Prosecutor’s Office in Kennewick, Washington, from August 2019 until February
2021. When completing the character and fitness questionnaire as part of the
investigation performed by the National Conference of Bar Examiners (“NCBE”),
Benton County Prosecutor Andy Miller reported that Lu had left the prosecutor’s
office for a different job, that he would not rehire Lu, and that he either did not
know or had no opinion on whether Lu possesses the character and fitness necessary
for the practice of law. Miller stated that he had explained to Lu that he would not
rehire Lu for that position or recommend Lu for a similar position but that he would
be a reference for Lu for a different job. Miller additionally provided, “I gave a
favorable recommendation to the Washington State Attorney General’s Office and
he [Lu] was hired. While Mr. Lu was employed there I became aware of a situation
in the State of Oregon which may have resulted in a criminal investigation.”

                                         2
                                January Term, 2023

       {¶ 4} In his application, Lu also disclosed that he had been employed by the
Nassau County District Attorney’s Office in New York from September 2018 until
June 2019. When completing the NCBE character and fitness questionnaire, that
office’s representative indicated not knowing or having no opinion on whether the
office would rehire Lu or whether Lu possesses the character and fitness necessary
for the practice of law.
       {¶ 5} Lu’s application further indicated that he had unsuccessfully sought
admission to the Utah bar based on his disclosure that his employment with the Salt
Lake City Attorney’s Office in September and October 2021 was “no longer
practical given [his] ineligibility to obtain practice pending admission under Utah
bar rules.” Lu provided no further information or explanation regarding this
statement made in his application.
       {¶ 6} Citing the alleged investigation in Oregon and circumstances
regarding Lu’s resignation from the Benton County Prosecutor’s Office, the board
sua sponte opened an investigation into Lu’s character, fitness, and moral
qualifications for admission to the practice of law. The board sought to schedule
an in-person hearing before a three-member panel regarding Lu’s application. The
panel reported that Lu had indicated that he was unwilling to travel to Ohio, that
Lu had refused to provide his available dates for a hearing, and that Lu had asked
why an “interview” had to be conducted in person. The panel explained to Lu that
it was not requesting his presence for an interview but for a hearing at which
testimony and evidence would be presented. Lu never responded again to the panel
despite subsequent requests from the panel for a response.
       {¶ 7} A hearing was scheduled before the panel for January 24, 2023, and
Lu was provided notice of the hearing. Lu, however, did not appear at the scheduled
hearing. Counsel for the Akron Bar Association appeared and indicated that the
association no longer recommended approval of Lu’s character, fitness, and moral
qualifications for admission to the practice of law; instead, counsel stated that the

                                         3
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

association recommended a disapproval of Lu’s application. In its report and
recommendation issued February 3, 2023, the panel noted that Lu had not contacted
the panel, the Akron Bar Association, or the Supreme Court of Ohio Bar
Admissions Office since October 24, 2022.
                         The Board’s Recommendation
       {¶ 8} Based on the Akron Bar Association’s recommendation, the lack of
information regarding Lu’s employment history and his purported “ineligibility” to
practice law pending admission to the Utah bar, and Lu’s “outright refusal to
cooperate in the [board’s] consideration of his application,” the board recommends
that we disapprove Lu’s application for admission to the practice of law in Ohio
and permit him to reapply for admission no earlier than January 2024.
                                    Disposition
       {¶ 9} An applicant for admission to the Ohio bar bears the burden “to prove
by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant possesses the requisite
character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to the practice of law.”
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).   “A record manifesting a significant deficiency in the honesty,
trustworthiness, diligence, or reliability of an applicant may constitute a basis for
disapproval,” id., as may an applicant’s failure to cooperate in proceedings before
the board, Gov.Bar R. I(14)(C)(6). In determining whether an applicant’s present
character, fitness, and moral qualifications qualify the applicant for admission to
the practice of law in Ohio, the rules require consideration of a number of factors
in assigning weight and significance to the applicant’s prior conduct, including the
age of the applicant at the time of the conduct, the recency of the conduct, the
reliability of the information concerning the conduct, the seriousness of the

                                         4
                                  January Term, 2023

conduct, the cumulative effect of the conduct, the candor of the applicant in the
admissions process, and the materiality of any omissions or misrepresentations. See
Gov.Bar R. I(13)(D)(4)(a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (i), and (j).
        {¶ 10} In this case, Lu’s application for admission to the practice of law in
Ohio raises legitimate questions regarding his employment history and his
purported ineligibility to practice law in another jurisdiction. Whether the answers
to these questions provide a basis for disapproval of Lu’s application remains
undetermined because he has failed to cooperate with the proceedings before the
board. This evasiveness in and of itself constitutes a basis for disapproval of Lu’s
application. See Gov.Bar R. I(13)(D)(3). Based on the facts described above, we
agree with the board’s finding that Lu has failed to carry his burden of proving by
clear and convincing evidence that he currently possesses the requisite character,
fitness, and moral qualifications to practice law in Ohio.
        {¶ 11} We therefore disapprove Lu’s pending application for admission to
the practice of law in Ohio but permit him to reapply for admission in January 2024.
                                                               Judgment accordingly.
        KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER,
and DETERS, JJ., concur.
                                 _________________
        Peter Boya Lu, pro se.
        Creveling & Creveling, L.L.C., and Michael A. Creveling, for the Akron
Bar Association.
                                 _________________

                                            5