In re Application of Barilatz - 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 Barilatz, 91 Ohio St.3d 396, 2001-Ohio-69.]

IN RE APPLICATION OF BARILATZ.
[Cite as In re Application of Barilatz (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 396.]
Attorneys at law -- Application to take Ohio Bar Examination denied --
Applicant prohibited from reapplying for admission to the practice of
law in Ohio.
(No. 00-1652 -- Submitted January 10, 2001 -- Decided April 25, 2001.)
ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness of
the Supreme Court, No. 178.
__________________

Per Curiam. In March 3, 1998, applicant, Michael J. Barilatz of East
Cleveland, Ohio, filed a notice of appeal from a report of the Joint Admissions
Committee of the Cleveland/Cuyahoga County Bar Association ("Joint
Admissions Committee") disapproving his application to take the February 1998
examination for admission to the practice of law in Ohio.

The appeal was assigned to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on
Character and Fitness of the Supreme Court ("board"), which began its hearing in
September 1998. At this initial hearing, the panel found that the applicant had
not in his application referred to, nor at the hearing produced, the Lake County
Bar Association's 1997 disapproval of his earlier application for admission to the
bar, that the applicant did not produce the letter to the Lake County Bar
Association from applicant's ex-wife charging applicant with financial and
criminal misconduct, and that the applicant could not document certain military
awards he claimed to have received. The panel therefore requested that the
applicant furnish additional information and that the Joint Admissions Committee
further investigate applicant's qualifications.

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

After a hearing in June 2000, the panel concluded and recommended to
the board that the applicant not be approved for admission to the practice of law
in Ohio and that he not be allowed to reapply. The panel reached its conclusion
after finding that applicant had failed to advise the Joint Admissions Committee
of his previous rejection for admission to the bar by the Lake County Bar
Association. The panel further found that the applicant failed to reveal and then
adamantly denied being a Florida resident although he owned property and had a
bank account in Florida, ran a business there, held a Florida real estate license,
registered to vote there, had an automobile titled and licensed there, and held a
Florida driver's license. The panel also found that applicant could not document
the three Purple Heart medals he claimed to have received in the Vietnam War.
Further, applicant had been jailed in 1992 and again in 1996 for failing to pay
child support, and his arrearage for child support in August 1998 amounted to
$33,447.97. The panel also found that in July 1998 while working as a law clerk
for a Cleveland attorney, he gave a municipal court judge the impression during a
telephone hearing that he was a licensed attorney. In addition, the panel found
that applicant did not inform the Joint Admissions Committee of his 1995 petition
for habeas corpus for release from a ninety-day jail term for contempt of court.
Finally, the panel found that in 1984, applicant was charged with carrying a
concealed weapon, pled guilty to a reduced misdemeanor charge, and was fined
$250. The panel believed that applicant's conduct, having occurred when he was
in his forties, could not be ascribed to youth or inexperience, and that since
applicant was now almost fifty years old, any change in his actions could not be
expected.

The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
panel.

After review of the record, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and
recommendation of the board. Applicant is hereby disapproved for admission to
2

January Term, 2001
the practice of law, and he shall not be permitted to reapply for admission in the
future. It is so ordered.
Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________
Michael
J.
Benza, for the Joint Admissions Committee of the
Cleveland/Cuyahoga County Bar Association.

Mark Paul Glassman, for applicant.
__________________
3