In Re Application of Coll
150 Ohio St. 3d 183
| Ohio | 2017Background
- Applicant Shamir Lee Coll, a 2015 Univ. of Toledo Law graduate, applied to register to take the February 2016 Ohio bar exam; the Toledo Bar Association admissions committee initially recommended approval.
- The Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness sua sponte reopened investigation because Coll’s Form 5T responses about moving traffic violations over the prior ten years were vague and incomplete.
- Coll provided identifying information but repeatedly refused to supply required details for each violation despite repeated requests; he later submitted partial Form 5Ts and only after conviction supplemented the record for other misdemeanors.
- Coll maintained he fulfilled his duty by providing identifying data and argued the Board/Court should independently investigate; he also made provocative supplemental statements and acknowledged he chose not to provide full answers.
- The Board found Coll willfully omitted information, failed to cooperate, and that those omissions (and his attitude) raised doubts about his character, fitness, judgment, and candor.
- The Ohio Supreme Court disapproved Coll’s pending registration application for lack of clear and convincing proof of requisite character and fitness, but allowed reapplication for the July 2018 bar exam (majority); Justice O’Donnell would bar reapplication permanently (concurring in part, dissenting in part).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Coll) | Defendant's Argument (Board/Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Coll’s incomplete Form 5T and omissions justify disapproval | Coll: identifying info (name, SSN, DL#) was sufficient; no duty to provide more; fees shift investigative burden | Board/Court: applicant must fully, honestly, and completely provide requested information; omissions impede investigation | Held: Omissions and false statements by omission justify disapproval for lack of required character and fitness |
| Whether Coll’s supplemental statements (personal beliefs) were improper considerations | Coll: objections to consideration of his personal-belief statements | Board/Court: statements plus omissions reflect disrespect, poor judgment, and unfitness | Held: Objection moot/overruled; statements contributed to concerns about fitness |
| Appropriate remedial period before reapplication | Coll: shorter delay (2017) comparing to other cases with more serious omissions | Board/Court: recommended delay to allow maturation and full NCBE investigation | Held: Court permits reapplication for July 2018 (two-year delay) but denies earlier reapplication; dissent would bar reapplication permanently |
| Whether payment of fees absolves applicant’s disclosure duties | Coll: paid fees; Board/Court should investigate fully | Board/Court: fees do not relieve applicant’s oath/obligation to disclose; process depends on applicant candor | Held: Fees do not relieve disclosure duty; applicant remains responsible for complete disclosure |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Application of Watson, 31 Ohio St.3d 220, 509 N.E.2d 1240 (1987) (applicants must fully, honestly, and completely provide information requested in character review)
- Shimko v. Lobe, 103 Ohio St.3d 59, 813 N.E.2d 669 (2004) (practice of law is a privilege subject to ethical standards for admission)
- In re Application of Steinhelfer, 142 Ohio St.3d 120, 28 N.E.3d 107 (2015) (disapproval for material nondisclosures; permitted reapplication after multi-year delay)
- In re Application of Baudendistel, 141 Ohio St.3d 101, 21 N.E.3d 1063 (2014) (disapproval where applicant concealed post-accident conduct; reapplication delayed)
- In re Application of Grimsley, 141 Ohio St.3d 94, 21 N.E.3d 1057 (2014) (disapproval for deliberate nondisclosure in law-school applications; reapplication delayed)
- In re Application of Zatik, 126 Ohio St.3d 397, 934 N.E.2d 335 (2010) (period of maturation may be appropriate to develop requisite honesty and reliability)
- In re Application of Blackwell, 116 Ohio St.3d 530, 880 N.E.2d 886 (2007) (applicant bears burden to prove character and fitness by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Application of Bonetti, 117 Ohio St.3d 113, 881 N.E.2d 1249 (2008) (importance of forthright participation in character review)
- In re Application of Corrigan, 47 Ohio St.3d 32, 546 N.E.2d 1315 (1989) (character hearings are mutual inquiries demanding cooperation and candor)
- In re Dabney, 107 Ohio St.3d 40, 836 N.E.2d 573 (2005) (failure to disclose serious prior offenses can lead to disapproval or license revocation)
- In re Application of Williams, 95 Ohio St.3d 107, 766 N.E.2d 143 (2002) (disapproval for lack of forthright disclosure; reapplication permitted after delay)
- In re Application of Ireland-Phillips, 71 Ohio St.3d 609, 646 N.E.2d 453 (1995) (disapproval for insufficient explanation of past misconduct; reapplication after delay)
- In re Application of Bagne, 102 Ohio St.3d 182, 808 N.E.2d 372 (2004) (even one incomplete answer can justify disapproval if applicant fails to explain)
- In re Application of Harris, 101 Ohio St.3d 268, 804 N.E.2d 429 (2004) (disapproval for failure to produce requested records; reapplication permitted after new evaluation)