In re Application of Salisbury - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice
Thomas J. Moyer.
Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S.
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative
Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.
NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the
full texts of the opinions after they have been released
electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.

In re Application of Salisbury.
[Cite as In re Application of Salisbury (1994), Ohio
St.3d .]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Indefinite suspension --
Suspension to terminate upon compliance with condition set
by the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness,
followed by further review by the board to determine
character and fitness to practice law.
(No. 93-2173 -- Submitted March 22, 1994 -- Decided June
8, 1994.)
On Report by the Board of Commissioners on Character and
Fitness, No. 90.
On March 30, 1987, Elizabeth A. Salisbury of Parma
Heights, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0043631, filed with
the Supreme Court of Ohio an application for registration as a
candidate for admission to the practice of law. Salisbury
represented that she had not been a party to legal proceedings
and that she had not been treated for mental illness in
response to questions on the application. She made the same
representations in her application to take the bar examination.
Salisbury received her law degree on May 14, 1989. She
passed the July 1989 bar examination and was admitted to the
practice of law in November of that year.
In a letter dated June 29, 1991, Salisbury confessed to
the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness that she
had been charged with a shoplifting offense in 1987 after
stealing a package of cheese. She explained to the board that
the charge had been dismissed and expunged from her record, but
that she had failed to disclose it on her application to take
the bar exam and had recently realized her obligation to do
so. Salisbury also advised that she suffered from bulimia, and
she attributed her shoplifting in part to this eating
disorder. The board referred Salisbury's letter to a review
subcommittee, which considered the matter and notified her in
September 1991 that it would take no further action.
In October 1992, Salisbury wrote to the board again and
disclosed two other shoplifting incidents that had occurred
prior to the incident in 1987, both of which she said she had

intended to reveal if the board had held a hearing in response
to her previous letter. One incident occurred in Pennsylvania
in 1986, when Salisbury attempted to return for cash a stolen
item worth less than fifteen dollars. She was charged with a
summary theft offense and paid a fine. The other incident
occurred in 1984, when Salisbury stole a package of candy bars
from an Ohio store. She was not charged with a criminal
offense.
Salisbury's new disclosures prompted the board to
investigate pursuant to its authority under Gov.Bar R. I,
Section 9(B)(2)(e). In November 1992, the board appointed a
panel to hear the matter, and the panel asked the Cuyahoga
County Bar Association to conduct an investigation and file a
report. Salisbury confirmed the three shoplifting incidents
and the circumstances surrounding them during an interview with
members of the Joint Committee on Bar Admissions of the
Cleveland Bar Association and the Cuyahoga County Bar
Association. The interviewers reported this and their
suspicions that Salisbury might require professional counseling.
The panel provided the bar associations' committee report
to Salisbury and suggested that she present evidence to
substantiate her recovery from the medical problems she
suffered in the past. Salisbury appeared at the hearing
scheduled for her case on June 11, 1993, and she testified
about the three shoplifting incidents and her eating disorder,
but she did not submit any medical or other evidence. The
Cuyahoga County Bar Association presented a summary report
prepared by a psychologist who had counseled Salisbury while
she attended law school and testimony from a managing partner
in the law firm that formerly employed Salisbury.
The evidence presented to the panel substantiated
Salisbury's failure to disclose on her Ohio bar application her
involvement in legal proceedings and psychological counseling
during her last year of law school for bulimia, mild anxiety
and depression. Salisbury explained that she read the question
about "legal proceedings" very narrowly and considered only one
of the shoplifting incidents relevant, and that she had not
initially appreciated her obligation to reveal that incident
after the charge was dismissed and expunged. She said she had
not disclosed her counseling sessions because she did not
consider herself to be a victim of mental illness and did not
consider the sessions to be treatment for mental illness,
although she admitted frequent episodes of shoplifting
throughout high school, college, and law school and that she
continues to suffer from bulimia. In her defense, Salisbury
emphasized that she had come forward voluntarily to confess her
nondisclosures; however, she also admitted that her
conscientiousness was motivated, in part, by her impending
search for new employment, and her fear that the past incidents
might be disclosed by others.
The panel also inquired about Salisbury's family and
educational background. Salisbury had consistently excelled in
academics, and she described her childhood as happy. However,
Salisbury attributed her bulimia to some sort of family
conflict and reluctantly mentioned that she had been
involuntarily committed to the Cleveland Clinic by her father
for a night in 1992, an event that she did not disclose during

the bar association interview. The panel was concerned enough
about Salisbury's condition that it retained the services of a
psychiatrist to evaluate her. Salisbury scheduled but did not
keep appointments with the psychiatrist.
Based on the foregoing, the panel found that Salisbury had
failed to truthfully complete her bar applications and had not
sufficiently demonstrated the integrity necessary for the
practice of law. The panel suggested, however, that
Salisbury's capacity for full disclosure of her shoplifting and
eating disorder might be attributable to her psychological
condition. Thus, the panel recommended that Salisbury's
license to practice law be suspended pending a thorough
psychological evaluation and, if necessary, treatment, to be
followed by further review by the board to determine her
character and fitness to practice law. The board adopted the
panel's findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Elizabeth A. Salisbury, pro se.
Morton S. Negin, for Cuyahoga County Bar Association.

Per Curiam. We concur in the board's finding and its
recommendation. Accordingly, we order that Elizabeth A.
Salisbury be suspended for an indefinite period from the
practice of law in Ohio. This suspension is to terminate upon
a showing of her compliance with the condition set by the
board, followed by further review by the board of her
character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to
the practice of law.
Judgment accordingly.
Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick and
F.E. Sweeney, JJ., concur.
Pfeifer, J., dissents and would instead refer this matter
to Disciplinary Counsel.