In Re Application of Washington.
152 Ohio St. 3d 365
| Ohio | 2018Background
- Brianna Lynn Washington applied in November 2015 to register as a candidate for admission to the Ohio bar while a Capital University Law student.
- A two-member admissions committee preliminarily recommended approval, but the Board invoked sua sponte investigation after learning Washington was dismissed from a DAS internship for timesheet discrepancies.
- A first panel hearing found two isolated instances of inaccurate time reporting and recommended Washington be allowed to sit for the bar; the Board remanded for further investigation.
- At a second hearing DAS supervisors testified they observed discrepancies on four occasions; Washington had testified at the first hearing about two inaccuracies but did not appear at the second hearing and failed to respond to multiple contact attempts.
- The panel issued a supplemental report citing the additional testimony and Washington’s complete noncooperation after the first hearing and recommended disapproval with leave to reapply; the Board adopted this recommendation.
- The Supreme Court agreed Washington failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications, denied the pending application, but permitted reapplication and attempt to sit for the July 2018 exam.
Issues
| Issue | Washington's Argument | Board/Opposition Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether inaccurate timesheet entries constitute dishonesty affecting character and fitness | Washington acknowledged two inaccuracies (implied mitigation: isolated incidents) | Timesheet misrepresentations are acts of dishonesty and may justify disapproval under Gov.Bar R. I(11) | Court: Misreporting hours was dishonest and weighed against fitness; supported disapproval |
| Whether failure to cooperate with investigation justifies denial | Washington did not respond or appear after first hearing; no argument preserved in record | Board: Complete noncooperation (no responses, no appearance) warrants disapproval | Court: Failure to cooperate alone is sufficient ground for disapproval; applicant denied but may reapply |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Application of Myers, 147 Ohio St.3d 32 (2016) (applicant’s failure to cooperate with panel’s efforts to reschedule and investigate supported disapproval)