Davis, Application of

Decision Date26 June 1974
Docket NumberNo. CF-74-1,CF-74-1
Citation38 Ohio St.2d 273,67 O.O.2d 344,313 N.E.2d 363
Parties, 67 O.O.2d 344 Application of DAVIS.
CourtOhio 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.

PER CURIAM.

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:

'September, 1969-I was charged with breaking and entering with the intent to commit a felony. The Franklin County grand jury returned an indictment of (1) breaking and entering an inhabited dwelling in the night season; and, (2) grand larceny. In September of 1970, I entered a plea of guilty to grand larceny, and the burglary charge was dropped. In January, 1971, I was given a sentence of five years probation conditioned on my dropping out of law school, which I did. In February, 1972 I was released from probation.'

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
33 cases
  • State v. Bill Adam Sanders, 96-LW-4745
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • December 10, 1996
    ...... 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
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • January 14, 1992
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • February 15, 1996
    ...... 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
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • June 28, 1985
    ......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 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT