Opinion
No. 91-2314
Submitted January 8, 1992 —
Decided January 22, 1992.
ON REPORT of the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness of the Supreme Court, No. 67.
In the fall of 1990, Frank J. Simmons, Jr. applied to register as a candidate for admission to the practice of law and to take the Ohio Bar Examination to be administered in February 1991. Simmons' application materials revealed a history of significant financial difficulties and that he had been suspended from the University of Toledo College of Law during the 1989-1990 spring semester for having used funds belonging to a student organization to pay his creditors.
Members of the Toledo Bar Association Admissions Committee interviewed Simmons to evaluate his character and fitness pursuant to Gov.Bar R. I, Section 10, but determined that his application warranted further review. A second, more extensive interview was arranged, but not held until after the February 1991 bar exam, which required Simmons to reapply for the examination to be held in July 1991. After the second interview, a special subcommittee unanimously recommended that Simmons be permitted to take the July 1991 bar exam.
Pursuant to the independent investigatory authority granted by Gov.Bar R. I, Section 9(B)(2)(e), however, the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness determined that a formal hearing was needed to consider Simmons' qualifications even more closely. Thus, the matter was heard by a panel appointed by the board on October 29, 1991.
The record before the panel shows the abysmal condition of Simmons' credit record, including unsatisfied judgments, credit card cancellations, garnishments, and an eviction, and that Simmons had, indeed, misappropriated $900 from the Black Law Student Association while he was its vice-president. However, the record also shows that Simmons voluntarily confessed what he had done to school authorities, that he took the money to care for his wife and children, and that he returned the money he had taken. Moreover, once Simmons was readmitted to the law school after his suspension, he was placed on probation for the remainder of his tenure, but graduated without incident.
The panel was impressed by the complete candor and genuine remorse with which Simmons recounted his misconduct, by his assurances that the misconduct would never be repeated, and by the favorable remarks on Simmons' character offered by several professors of the University of Toledo College of Law. However, due to the gravity of his misconduct, the panel rejected the Toledo Bar Association's recommendation that Simmons be permitted, in effect, to apply to take the next available bar examination. The panel recommended that Simmons be required to wait a full two years after his first application and to reapply for the February 1993 exam. The board adopted this recommendation.
Fuller Henry and Raymond G. Esch; McConnell, Taylor Tolliver and Keith L. Mitchell, for the Toledo Bar Association.
Frank J. Simmons, Jr., pro se.
We have reviewed the record in this case and are particularly struck, as the board was, with this applicant's forthright confession of and testimony about his misconduct. However, unlike the board, we are satisfied with Simmons' regret and renewed commitment to the standards manifested by the Code of Professional Responsibility and, therefore, find nothing to be gained by allowing another year to pass before Simmons may apply for the bar examination. Accordingly, we accept the Toledo Bar Association's recommendation and order that Simmons be permitted to apply, pursuant to Gov. Bar R. I, Section 3, for the next available Ohio Bar Examination.
Order accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS and RESNICK, JJ., concur.
WRIGHT and H. BROWN, JJ., concur in judgment only.