In re Application of Sabino - 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

IN RE APPLICATION OF SABINO.
[Cite as In re Application of Sabino (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Attorneys at law -- Application to register as candidate for admission to the
practice of law -- Application denied when applicant fails to cooperate
with Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness of the Supreme
Court, maintain a current address with the board, and establish good
character by clear and convincing evidence, and abandons his application
to take the bar examination and his appeal of the disapproval of his
application -- Applicant precluded from reapplying for admission to the
bar of Ohio.
(No. 97-1927 -- Submitted November 4, 1997 -- Decided February 18, 1998.)
ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness of the
Supreme Court, No. 147.

On October 25, 1995, William Sabino ("applicant") applied to take the
February 1996 bar examination. His application was referred to the Columbus Bar
Association for a character and fitness evaluation. Two members of the
Admissions Committee of the bar association ("committee") interviewed applicant
and recommended that his application be disapproved. Two other committee
members then interviewed him and also recommended disapproval. The entire
committee then voted for disapproval, and the applicant appealed.

When a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness of
the Supreme Court ("board") attempted to notify appellant at his last known
telephone number in Columbus, Ohio, of the hearing scheduled on his appeal, it
was unable to contact applicant. At the bar association's request, the panel
continued its hearing on the appeal and secured an order requiring applicant to

submit to a psychological examination. Applicant failed to appear for the
examination.

The chairperson of the panel then contacted applicant by telephone in New
Jersey, where applicant had resided at the time of his original application.
Applicant informed the chairperson that he did not intend to continue his efforts to
be admitted to the Ohio bar. Subsequent attempts to contact applicant by certified
mail have been returned "unclaimed," and subsequent notices sent to applicant by
regular mail have not been returned.

The panel recommended disapproval of applicant's request to take the Ohio
Bar Examination for (1) failure to cooperate, (2) failure to maintain a current
address with the board, (3) failure to establish good character by clear and
convincing evidence, (4) abandonment of his application to take the bar
examination, and (5) abandonment of his appeal. The board adopted the findings
and conclusions of the panel, recommended that he not be approved to take the bar
examination, and further recommended that he not be permitted to reapply for
admission to the bar of Ohio. On September 22, 1997, we issued an order to
applicant to show cause why we should not adopt the findings and
recommendation of the board. Applicant has not responded to that order.
__________________

Carl B. Fry and Barry A. Waller, for Columbus Bar Association.
__________________

Per Curiam. We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the board. Applicant's request to take the Ohio bar examination is denied, and he
is not permitted to reapply for admission to the bar of Ohio.
Judgment accordingly.

2