In re Application of VanDenBossche - 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

[Cite as In re Application of VanDenBossche, 88 Ohio St.3d 158, 2000-Ohio-290.]

IN RE APPLICATION OF VANDENBOSSCHE.
[Cite as In re Application of VanDenBossche (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 158.]
Attorneys at law -- Application to take Ohio Bar Examination denied when
applicant has not met his burden of proving his present fitness to practice
law in Ohio -- Applicant prohibited from applying for any bar examination
earlier than the February 2001 bar examination.
(No. 99-1882 -- Submitted December 15, 1999 -- Decided February 23, 2000.)
ON REPORT of the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness of the
Supreme Court, No. 189.

On June 2, 1998, Achille Craig VanDenBossche of Avon Lake, Ohio,
applied for admission to the practice of law in Ohio. As required by Gov.Bar R.
I(11)(C)(3), two members of the Lorain County Bar Association Admissions
Committee interviewed VanDenBossche. In January 1999, the admissions
committee recommended that VanDenBossche's application be approved with
qualifications, which under Gov.Bar R. I(11)(F)(1) operated as a recommendation
that VanDenBossche not be admitted to practice law in Ohio. The committee
based its decision on VanDenBossche's extensive prior arrest record and the poor
judgment exhibited by his past behavior.

VanDenBossche appealed the committee's decision to the Board of
Commissioners on Character and Fitness of the Supreme Court ("board"), and a
panel of the board heard the matter on May 10, 1999.

The panel found that VanDenBossche's criminal record included a 1975
juvenile charge for disturbing the peace, a 1977 juvenile charge for operating a
motor vehicle without a license, 1978 juvenile charges for carrying a concealed
weapon and disorderly conduct, a 1980 criminal damaging conviction, convictions
for various traffic offenses from 1980 to 1984, a 1992 assault charge, 1994 charges

of gross sexual imposition and theft, and 1995 charges of loitering and prowling,
resisting arrest, and battery. The most recent criminal charges, i.e., those from
1992, 1994, and 1995, all occurred when VanDenBossche was over thirty years
old, and all of these charges were ultimately dismissed. The panel placed special
emphasis on VanDenBossche's conduct regarding these recent criminal charges.

In 1992, VanDenBossche confronted his best friend at his place of
employment about a suspected relationship between the friend and
VanDenBossche's then-wife. The conversation led to an argument that culminated
in a brawl. As a result of the fight, VanDenBossche was charged with assault, but
the charge was subsequently dismissed after his friend decided that he did not want
the case to proceed. VanDenBossche conceded at the panel hearing that he had
indeed assaulted his friend.

In 1994, VanDenBossche went to a department store to return a damaged
sweater that he had purchased for about $110. The female sales clerk credited him
with the original purchase price and then sold him another of the same style of
sweater at the lower sales price of fifty-five dollars. In order to express his
gratitude, VanDenBossche offered to buy her a drink at a local bar. At the time,
VanDenBossche had been married only a few months to his current wife. When
VanDenBossche arrived at the bar that night, the clerk was there and he bought her
some drinks. After the clerk became intoxicated, VanDenBossche kissed her a few
times. According to VanDenBossche, he refused to take her home, but offered to
call her a cab, and she declined and went back into the bar. VanDenBossche was
later indicted on charges of gross sexual imposition and theft after the clerk
accused him of groping and raping her. The court dismissed the case with
prejudice after the clerk informed the prosecutor that she did not want to go
forward with the case. Despite the gravity of these charges, VanDenBossche could

2

not recall the specific, underlying factual allegations of the charges, including
where the offenses purportedly occurred.

In 1995, while on vacation with his wife and baby in Englewood Beach,
Florida, VanDenBossche drove his wife to dinner. On the way back to his
mother's house from dinner, they decided to turn around and go to a club.
VanDenBossche pulled into a parking lot to turn around, and another man pulled
his car next to theirs. After the man accused them of stealing his boats from the
marina, he blocked their car from exiting the lot. According to VanDenBossche,
both he and the other man exited their cars, the man hit VanDenBossche with a
plastic coffee mug, and they fought until VanDenBossche pinned him on the
ground. VanDenBossche blackened the man's eye and fractured his nose.
VanDenBossche advised his wife to drive away and after she did, he ran a half-
mile and hid in the woods. Although he heard police sirens and there were
businesses in that area, VanDenBossche stayed in the woods until the police found
him and arrested him for battery, loitering and prowling, and resisting arrest. The
prosecutor subsequently dismissed the charges. At the panel hearing,
VanDenBossche apologized if his explanation of the incident seemed vague.

The panel concluded that VanDenBossche had not satisfied his burden of
proving by clear and convincing evidence that he presently possesses the requisite
character and fitness for admission to the bar. The panel based its conclusion on
his lack of good judgment in the 1992, 1994, and 1995 incidents, as well as his
lack of credible, complete explanations of the circumstances surrounding the 1994
gross sexual imposition and theft charges and the 1995 Florida charges. The panel
recommended that VanDenBossche not be permitted to take the bar examination
until February 2000. The board adopted the findings of the panel, but
recommended that VanDenBossche not be permitted to take the bar examination
until July 2000.

3

__________________

Fauver, Tattersall & Gallagher, P.L.L., and John L. Keyse-Walker, for the
Lorain County Bar Association.

Mary L. Cibella, for applicant.
__________________

Per Curiam. In order to be admitted to the practice of law in Ohio,
VanDenBossche must establish by clear and convincing evidence his "present
character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission." Gov.Bar R.
I(12)(C)(6); In re Application of Kemp (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 274, 276, 703 N.E.2d
769, 771. Evidence of a pattern of disregard of the laws of Ohio or of other states
and a failure to provide complete and accurate information concerning the
applicant's past reflect adversely on an applicant's present character, fitness, and
moral qualifications. Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3)(f) and (g). In other words, "
`[a]pplicants for admission to the Ohio Bar must establish by clear and convincing
evidence that their prior conduct justifies the trust of clients, adversaries, courts
and others with respect to the professional duties owed to them.' " In re
Application of Nerren (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 322, 323, 681 N.E.2d 906, quoting In
re Application of Keita (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 46, 47, 656 N.E.2d 620, 622.

We adopt the findings of the board, but believe that a longer period is
warranted before VanDenBossche should be permitted to take the bar examination.
VanDenBossche's criminal record, including his recent charges in which he
admitted assaulting his best friend at his workplace and having physical contact
with an intoxicated woman he had invited to a bar a few months after his marriage
to his current wife, together with his failure to provide a full and credible account
of either the gross sexual imposition or Florida charges, reflects a cavalier
approach to the law and a lack of reliable judgment by VanDenBossche, even

4

though the most recent charges were ultimately dismissed. See In re Applications
of Piro (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 400, 402, 613 N.E.2d 201, 202.

Based on the foregoing, VanDenBossche has not met his burden of proving
his present fitness to practice law in Ohio. Accordingly, we prohibit
VanDenBossche from applying for any bar examination earlier than the February
2001 bar examination.
Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur.

COOK, J., concurs in judgment only.

DOUGLAS and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent.

5