Opinion
No. 91-1355
Submitted October 8, 1991, —
Opinion announced December 31, 1991.
ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness of the Supreme Court, No. 54.
Applicant, Maximillian Paul Lammers, Jr., attended the University of Bridgeport School of Law from 1981 through 1984. As of May 1984, Lammers needed to complete a two-hour legal writing seminar in order to have the eighty-six credit hours required to graduate. Knowing that he would not have his legal writing assignment completed on time, Lammers received an extension of time in which to submit it.
Despite his credit-hour deficiency, Lammers was permitted to participate in the school's commencement exercises. He also applied to take the July 1984 Ohio Bar Examination. As part of his application, he submitted the required Certificate of Law School that must be completed by the dean of the applicant's law school. On that form, the dean was to certify whether the applicant "has been" or "will be" awarded a Juris Doctor degree prior to the bar examination. On Lammers' certificate, a line was drawn through both choices and an asterisk placed above the "has been" selection. No explanation or comment accompanied the asterisk.
In July 1984, Lammers took the Ohio Bar Examination. Lammers passed the test and was admitted to the practice of law in November 1984. Lammers secured employment and has continued to practice law since. To date, however, Lammers has not completed his legal writing seminar and, consequently, has never received his law degree.
In early 1989, University of Bridgeport School of Law Associate Dean Robert C. Farrell contacted Lammers and stated that the school had learned of Lammers' admission, without a law degree, to the Ohio bar. In response, Lammers requested, and was denied, another extension of time in which to complete his legal writing assignment. On May 11, 1989, Farrell relayed his information to this court. The matter was referred to the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness of the Supreme Court on August 29, 1990.
A special investigator appointed by the board confirmed that Lammers had never received his law degree. The investigator could not determine who altered Lammers' Certificate of Law School. Dean Howard Glickstein acknowledged his signature on the document but denied making any alteration. Lammers and registrar Mary Ellen Durso also denied making the alteration.
On June 5, 1991, the matter was heard by a board-appointed panel. Lammers testified that he was aware when he took the bar examination that a law degree was a precondition to eligibility for the examination. He was also aware that he lacked a law degree. He explained that he intended to eventually complete the seminar paper and did not believe, at the time, that the unfinished assignment would preclude him from taking the bar examination. As time passed, the paper "became this thing in the back of my mind," but was never completed.
Lammers accepted full responsibility for his conduct and recognized the gravity of his actions. He expressed eagerness to do whatever was necessary to correct the situation. In addition, Lammers submitted letters from Richard C. Sahli, Dale T. Vitale and Grant W. Wilkinson, all of whom supervised Lammers at his most recent employment with the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. All the supervisors commented on Lammers' forthrightness in bringing the current matter to their attention. The supervisors also highly praised Lammers' enthusiasm, professionalism, legal knowledge and work ethic and stated that Lammers was a valuable employee.
The panel concluded that Lammers' lack of a law degree disqualified him from admission to the practice of law under Gov. Bar R. I(1)(C). The panel recommended that Lammers' license be revoked and that upon obtaining his law degree, he be readmitted to the practice of law without undergoing further examination. The board adopted the panel's findings of fact and recommendation. Lammers filed objections to the board's report, urging this court to stay the proposed revocation until Lammers had a chance to obtain his degree.
Effective October 8, 1991, this court, at 62 Ohio St.3d 1427, 578 N.E.2d 820, issued an order immediately revoking Lammers' license and conditioning reinstatement on receipt of his law degree and successful recompletion of the Ohio Bar Examination.
Charles W. Kettlewell, for applicant.
Timothy J. Ucker, Special Investigator, for the board.
Under Gov. Bar R. I(1), an applicant for admission to the practice of law in Ohio must:
"* * * (C) [H]ave earned a degree from a law school which is approved by the American Bar Association * * *." It is undisputed that applicant Lammers has not satisfied this requirement. The only question that remains is the appropriate action to be taken.
In reaching our decision, we recognize the high professional regard in which the applicant is held by his most recent employer. Against this, however, we must balance seven years of deliberate disregard for rules of this court, Lammers' continued misrepresentation of his status as a law school graduate, and his conspicuous lack of initiative to remedy this situation prior to it being brought to our attention.
Lammers knew in 1984 that a law degree was necessary to take Ohio's bar examination. He took the test anyway. Lammers also knew that a law degree was a prerequisite to admission to the practice of law in this state. He took his professional oath nonetheless. This clear disregard of the rules of this court is not minimized by the applicant's claim that he intended to eventually complete his seminar paper and receive his degree.
Additionally, as Lammers continued to function as a licensed attorney, he inherently misrepresented himself as a law school graduate. The record also contains evidence of at least one instance of Lammers' deliberate misrepresentation of his graduate status. Lammers admittedly misrepresented himself as an 1984 law school graduate in his employment application with the Lake County Public Defender's Office.
Finally, we find Lammers' delay in taking remedial action to be significant. In the approximately five years preceding initiation of this matter, Lammers made no effort to secure his degree. This is despite a conversation he had with a former classmate, Mitch Lieberman, who warned him that the law school had not forgotten about Lammers' uncompleted seminar class. Lammers testified that in 1987 or 1988, Lieberman passed along word from a University of Bridgeport law professor that the issue of Lammers' unfinished seminar paper had been raised in a recent faculty meeting. Lammers, however, did nothing and continued to ignore the situation until the law school contacted him shortly before these proceedings were commenced. Lammers' prolonged inactivity convinces us that Lammers had abandoned any intention of completing the writing seminar and would have continued to practice without a degree indefinitely.
Lammers urges us to stay revocation of his law license, citing our recent decisions in In re July 1986 Ohio Bar Examination Applicant No. 719 (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 605, 573 N.E.2d 593, and In re July 1986 Ohio Bar Examination Applicant No. 1327 (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 606, 573 N.E.2d 38. In those cases, the applicants were notified that they had passed the July 1986 bar examination. In each instance, the passing score was based, in part, on a multi-state bar examination ("MBE") score that warranted a random check of only two of twelve essay booklets. Both applicants were admitted to the practice of law in November 1986.
Subsequent review revealed that the applicants' MBE scores were lower than originally thought and, as such, all the essay booklets should have been graded. We concluded that the applicants were improperly afforded a presumption of passing. However, since the essay booklets had been destroyed, the applicants' true performances could not be determined.
We suspended applicants from the practice of law until they were able to demonstrate compliance with the bar admission requirements by successfully retaking the Ohio Bar Examination. Suspension, however, was stayed pending application for and successful completion of the next scheduled bar examination.
Those two cases differ substantially from that currently at bar. In the earlier decisions, the circumstances giving rise to the test-score controversy were beyond the applicants' control. In this case, Lammers was solely responsible for the incidents precipitating revocation.
In consideration of the above, we confirm our order issued effective October 8, 1991.
Order confirmed.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.