Davis, Application of
Decision Date | 26 June 1974 |
Docket Number | No. CF-74-1,CF-74-1 |
Citation | 38 Ohio St.2d 273,67 O.O.2d 344,313 N.E.2d 363 |
Parties | , 67 O.O.2d 344 Application of DAVIS. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Stanley K. Laughlin, Jr., Columbus, for applicant.
Dennis D. Grant, Richard C. Simpson and Theodore T. Twynham, Columbus, for the Columbus Bar Ass'n.
On May 2, 1973, Frederick E. Davis, Jr., filed applications for registration as a candidate for admission to the practice of law and for permission to take the bar examination. In response to question 12(a) of the application for registration as a candidate for admission, Davis stated:
Pursuant to Section 3(B) of Gov.R.I., the applications were referred to the Committee on Applicants for Admission to the Practice of Law of the Columbus Bar Association. Upon consideration of the application, a personal interview of Davis and certain independent investigation, the committee recommended to this court that the application be disapproved 'for the reason that the applicant's file reveals that said applicant plead guilty to a felony.'
Upon receipt of the notice of the adverse recommendation of the admissions committee, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 9(D), Gov.R.I., Davis requested a hearing before the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness. The hearing was held on October 5, 1973, before a three-member panel of that board. The board's report was filed with this court on January 15, 1974. The report concluded that Davis was not qualified for admission to the practice of law and recommended that the court disapprove his application.
To be admitted to the bar of this state, an applicant must possess certain required educational qualifications and must demonstrate a proficiency in the law. Equally important, he must also establish his fitness and prove that he has the good moral character which an attorney at law must possess in order to faithfully fulfill the position of trust in which he is placed by his clients, by this court and by society. Section 9(H), Gov.R.I.
The paramount concern in proceedings before the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness is whether the applicant possesses those moral traits of honesty and integrity which will enable him to fully and faithfully discharge the duties of our demanding profession. We view such proceedings as being different from the adversary contest associated with, for example, disciplinary cases. A hearing to determine character and fitness should be more of a mutual inquiry for the purpose of acquainting this court with the applicant's innermost feelings and personal views on those aspects of morality, attention to duty, forthrightness and self-restraint which are usually associated with the accepted definition of 'good moral character.' Such a view commands the utmost in cooperation between the applicant and the board, and leaves little room for the employment of doctrines which work to keep relevant information from the board. Although those devices are valid and proper in many instances, they should not be invoked before a body whose...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Bill Adam Sanders, 96-LW-4745
...... N.E.2d 895; State v. Fox (1981), 68 Ohio St.2d 53, 428 N.E.2d. 410, State v. Davis (1992), 81 Ohio App.3d 706, 612 N.E.2d. 343. Appellant therefore contends that his trial. ... impartial jury.' `Throughout the long history of. litigation involving application of the speedy trial. statutes, this court has repeatedly announced that the trial. ......
-
Scott v. State Bar Examining Committee, 14210
...Haukebo, 352 N.W.2d 752, 754 (Minn.1984); Application of Jenkins, 94 N.J. 458, 471, 467 A.2d 1084 (1983); In re Application of Davis, 38 Ohio St.2d 273, 276, 313 N.E.2d 363 (1974). Fitness to practice law does not remain fixed in time. While the BEC found the petitioner unfit to practice la......
-
Prager, Matter of
...... The Board of Bar Examiners (board) held a hearing on his application and on January 6, 1995, reported to this court, pursuant to G.L. c. 221 § 37 (1994 ed.), 1 that ... See also In re Cason, 249 Ga. 806, 807-808, 294 S.E.2d 520 (1982); In re Application of Davis, 38 Ohio St.2d 273, 275, 313 N.E.2d 363 (1974) (Davis I ); Matter of Jaffee, 311 Or. 159, 163, 806 ......
-
In re Manville
......This court then granted Manville 20 days to show cause why his application should not be denied. Having considered his brief and having heard oral argument, we remand to the ...36, 41-42, 81 S.Ct. 997, 1001-1002, 6 L.Ed.2d 105 (1961). See, e.g., In re Application of Davis, 38 Ohio St.2d 273, 313 N.E.2d 363 (1974) (per curiam) (bar admissions committee conducted ......