In re Application of Parry - 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 Parry.
[Cite as In re Application of Parry (1995), Ohio
St.3d .]
(No. 95-354 -- Submitted March 21, 1995 -- Decided March 30,
1995.)
On Report of the Board of Commissioners on Character and
Fitness of the Supreme Court, No. 109.
Richard Byron Parry applied to register as a candidate for
admission to the practice of law in August 1993, and, in
November 1993, he applied to take the February 1994 Ohio bar
examination. Representatives of the Admissions Committee of
the Columbus Bar Association interviewed Parry on November 11,
1993, and again on December 15, 1993. Both panels recommended
disapproval of Parry's application to register for bar
admission due to his poor employment history, his financial
irresponsibility, and his failure to pay the fines for numerous
parking and other traffic violations. The admissions committee
report filed with the clerk of this court recommended that
Parry be disapproved.
Parry appealed the admissions committee report and
recommendation, and a panel of the Board of Commissioners on
Character and Fitness of the Supreme Court ("board") heard the
matter on December 6, 1994.
Evidence submitted to the panel established that as of the
hearing date, Parry had accumulated approximately $65,000 of
debt, at least $51,000 of which was attributable to student
loans. Parry testified that he is attempting to satisfy these
financial obligations through a modest payment schedule and
that he does not intend to file bankruptcy proceedings.
Evidence also established Parry's discharge from a variety
of jobs held before and during law school. Parry explained his
1984 discharge from a pizza restaurant as the result of a
dispute over an insufficiently funded paycheck. He was
discharged in 1990 by Ohio State University, where he had
worked since 1984, for insubordination and an infraction
involving dishonesty that was later determined to be meritless
in arbitration. Parry was also discharged from two positions
as a security guard: one in 1987, apparently because he had

slept on the job; and another in 1993, when he failed to
provide medical verification for a missed work day.
Evidence submitted to the panel further established
Parry's history of ignoring traffic and parking citations. For
example, from 1987 through 1993, he accumulated at least
twenty-four parking citations, and he did not pay all the fines
until he realized it might adversely affect his bar
application. The panel also learned that Parry had continued
to drive after the lapse of his car insurance and had caused an
automobile collision on March 3, 1994. Parry has apparently
promised to pay for the $3,100 in damages he caused.
Despite Parry's financial and other problems, the panel
was impressed with his candor. It was also satisfied with his
explanations for having lost so many jobs. The most disturbing
evidence to the panel was Parry's March 1994 accident and his
lack of automobile insurance. It was this incident that led
the panel to recommend that the Columbus Bar Association
Admissions Committee's recommendation to disapprove Parry be
modified so that he would be eligible to reapply to take the
July 1995 Ohio bar examination, at which time he would go
through the character and fitness interview process.
The board considered the panel's report and
recommendation, and adopted the panel's report with
modifications. The board noted in its report that the
combination of Parry's financial difficulties, cavalier
disregard of parking laws and rules, continuing and ongoing
employment difficulties, and, most importantly, exhibition of
gross irresponsibility in operating an automobile without
insurance, created "significant questions in the [b]oard's mind
as to whether or not he has demonstrated the requisite
character and fitness for present admission." The board stated
that much of Parry's remedial action appeared to have been in
reaction to the challenge to his application for admission.
The board recommended that Parry be disapproved. However, the
board also recommended that he be permitted to reapply for the
July 1995 Ohio bar examination, at which time he would go
through the character and fitness process; be re-interviewed;
and be permitted to demonstrate that his efforts at correcting
his past problems had been successful.

Charles W. Kettlewell, for applicant.
Harris, McClellan, Binau & Cox, and John D. Hvizdos;
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease and Charles A. Schneider, for the
Admissions Committee of the Columbus Bar Association.

Per Curiam. We have reviewed the record in this case and
agree with the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the
board. Parry is not approved for admission to the practice of
law in Ohio. However, irrespective of filing deadlines, Parry
may reapply for admission and to take the July 1995 bar
examination, the approval of which applications shall remain
subject to a favorable evaluation of Parry's character and
fitness.
Judgment accordingly.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney,
Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.