Summary
finding that the applicant's disorderly conduct conviction and repeated traffic violations, including speeding, demonstrated that the applicant lacked the requisite character and fitness for the practice of law but permitting the applicant to reapply
Summary of this case from In re MikulinOpinion
No. 95-447
Submitted April 4, 1995 —
Decided July 26, 1995.
ON REPORT of the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness, No. 115.
Kevin M. Kapel failed to pass the July 1992 Ohio Bar Examination. On November 30, 1992, he filed an application for reexamination to take the February 1993 Bar exam. In January 1993, the Admissions Committee of the Geauga County Bar Association recommended disapproval of the application due to his record of convictions for traffic offenses, which included three suspensions of his driver's license during the preceding five years. Kapel appealed that recommendation to the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness ("board"). Following a hearing, the board approved him as to character and fitness, and he was permitted to take the July 1993 Bar exam. He did not receive a passing score. He sat for and again failed the February 1994 Bar exam.
Upon Kapel's reapplication in June 1994, the admissions committee again recommended disapproval because he had continued to violate traffic laws and other laws. Kapel appealed to the board again, and, on December 7, 1994, he also reapplied to take the February 1995 Bar exam. His appeal and application for the February 1995 Bar exam were heard on January 17, 1995 by the same panel of the board that had approved of his character and fitness in his prior appeal.
The evidence submitted to the panel established that Kapel continued to disobey the traffic laws despite his having earlier recognized that he needed to stop speeding and correct his careless driving habits. According to his June 6, 1994 application, Kapel was cited for speeding on September 26, 1993, and for a traffic control device violation on December 18, 1993. In March 1994, he was cited for driving under suspension (no insurance), speeding, and resisting arrest, but he accepted a plea bargain and pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of disorderly conduct. According to his December 7, 1994 application, Kapel was cited for speeding on August 13, 1994, for passing on the right on October 26, 1994, and for speeding and driving with an expired driver's license on October 30, 1994.
Kapel testified to having consulted a psychiatrist after his citation for speeding in October 1994, and he had not received any citations for traffic violations in the intervening months before the panel hearing. He also established that the driving-without-insurance citation was due to an administrative mistake either by the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles or his insurance company. In addition, Kapel explained that the resisting-arrest citation was more of a misunderstanding with the arresting officer than an altercation.
However, the panel was troubled by Kapel's sustained "disregard of the mundane legal requirements of our society," and particularly by his conviction for disorderly conduct. The panel opined:
"It is quite clear * * * that Mr. Kapel has demonstrated a pattern of either casual disregard of, or willful disobedience to, societal constraints that, when coupled with the conviction for disturbing the peace, shows a very disturbing propensity to violate rules and regulations. The prior panel approved Mr. Kapel partly under the assurance he would get this behavior under control. He had not done so at least through the later part of 1994. That failure has now ripened into a sufficient level of moral turpitude that we can not say with assurance that Mr. Kapel has shown by clear and convincing evidence that he is qualified to practice law.
"Mr. Kapel did present evidence that he had been seeing a psychiatrist following the latest round of traffic violations and presented evidence that his medication seemed to be helping his depression and impulsive behavior, presumably his habit of speeding. However, the panel members did not feel that the treatment had been of sufficient duration to justify a conclusion that the pattern of scofflaw behavior had ended."
For these reasons, the panel determined that Kapel had not demonstrated the character and fitness necessary to practice law and recommended disapproval of his applications to take the Ohio Bar Examination. However, the panel also recommended that Kapel be permitted to apply to take the February 1996 Bar exam because, "[b]y that time, it should be apparent from Mr. Kapel's record whether * * * he has * * * begun to master impulses that lead him to a * * * pattern of violations of the law."
The board adopted the panel's report, including its findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendation.
Robert R. Wantz, for applicant.
Richard Zeigler, for the Geauga County Bar Association.
Having carefully reviewed the record, we agree that Kevin M. Kapel has not sufficiently demonstrated his present character and fitness for admission to the practice of law in Ohio. We also concur in the board's recommendation. Accordingly, Kapel's pending applications to take the Ohio Bar Examination are disapproved, and he may not reapply until necessary for the February 1996 Bar examination.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur.