Summary
revoking license of an attorney based on his failure to timely disclose his criminal history during the admissions process and his false testimony under oath but allowing him to reapply for admission to the Ohio bar and to sit for the bar exam a second time
Summary of this case from In re Application of CallamOpinion
No. 91-2318
Submitted January 8, 1992 —
Decided April 8, 1992.
ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness of the Supreme Court, No. 47.
On November 29, 1988, Stephen D. Sandler filed with the Supreme Court of Ohio an application for registration as a candidate for admission to the practice of law. Among other averments made therein, Sandler declared that he had never been a party to any legal proceeding nor had he ever been treated for mental illness. Sandler repeated these averments in his application to take the bar examination.
Sandler received his law degree on May 13, 1989. He successfully completed the July 1989 bar examination and was admitted to the practice of law in early November 1989.
On November 15, 1989, Sandler wrote to Catherine Talda, Admissions Counsel in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, and "pursuant to our conversation of November 13th," provided a list of criminal offenses that had not been disclosed on his bar admission and bar examination applications.
The proximity of these disclosures to Sandler's bar admission prompted the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness of the Supreme Court to exercise its sua sponte investigative authority under Gov. Bar R. I, Section 9(B)(2)(e). A three-member panel was convened and a special investigator was appointed.
Investigation confirmed nearly all the offenses enumerated in the November 1989 letter. In addition to several traffic offenses, Sandler had been previously convicted of unauthorized use of property, driving while intoxicated, and disorderly conduct.
Investigation also revealed other false statements and omissions in Sandler's admission documents that Sandler had not brought to the court's attention. His categorical denial of treatment for mental illness, for example, proved untrue. Sandler was under a psychiatrist's care when he filed his applications and had been receiving treatments since 1984. Investigation also disclosed misrepresentations regarding the circumstances surrounding Sandler's departure from three previous employers. Sandler indicated that he left employment at the Toledo Municipal Court and Toledo Hospital to return to school when he had actually been asked to resign due to poor performance. Sandler was also discharged from Container Graphics Corporation for the same reason, although he claimed on his applications that his termination resulted from a personality conflict with a supervisor.
Sandler's case was heard by the panel on October 17 and 18, 1991. Sandler eventually admitted to submitting applications containing sworn statements that he knew to be false. He claimed that he lied or withheld information because he was "ashamed," but conceded that it did not excuse his actions.
When asked about the timeliness of disclosing these inaccuracies to the court, Sandler, despite numerous opportunities to do so, could not substantiate his claim that he had informed the court of the problem prior to taking the bar examination. The evidence instead indicated that Sandler did not contact the court until after he was sworn in as an attorney.
Further testimony also established that Sandler had not fully cooperated with the investigation and had lied under oath during the hearing itself. As to the former, Sandler admittedly withheld information concerning two post-examination employment discharges for poor performance. Sandler also admitted to having perjured himself earlier in the proceedings with regard to the circumstances of his hiring at Container Graphics Corporation.
After reviewing the evidence and testimony presented, the panel found that applicant: (1) lied on his applications, (2) knowingly failed to promptly rectify those admissions and misrepresentations, (3) exhibited continued dishonesty during the investigation, and (4) lied while under oath during the hearing. The panel noted that applicant's false statements on his application alone demonstrated the lack of character and fitness required of an attorney. The panel, however, stressed that "[t]he record is replete with instances in which this applicant demonstrated a complete lack of honesty and integrity."
Having concluded that applicant lacked the "single most critical attribute" required of an attorney — honesty — the panel recommended that: (1) Sandler's license to practice law be immediately revoked; (2) Sandler not be permitted to reapply for admission for a period of three years; and (3) upon reapplication, he be required to take the Ohio Bar Examination and undergo another character and fitness examination in which he demonstrated his character, fitness, and moral qualifications to practice law.
The board adopted the panel's findings of fact and recommendation, with the exception that applicant not be permitted to take the Ohio Bar Examination sooner than February 1995.
On November 26, 1991, this court issued an order giving Sandler twenty days in which to show cause why the board's recommendation should not be adopted. Sandler did not respond.
Britz Zemmelman and Harland M. Britz, for the applicant.
Prudence C. Spink, Special Investigator, for the board.
After careful consideration of the record before us, we concur in the board's findings and recommendation. Accordingly, applicant's license to practice law is immediately revoked. Applicant may reapply for admission, provided that he (1) undergoes another character and fitness exam in which he successfully demonstrates his character, fitness and moral qualifications to practice law, and (2) successfully retakes the Ohio Bar Examination, no sooner than February 1995.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.