In re Application of Williams - 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 Williams, 95 Ohio St.3d 107, 2002-Ohio-1938.]

IN RE APPLICATION OF WILLIAMS.
[Cite as In re Application of Williams (2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 107.]
Attorneys at law -- Application to take Ohio Bar Examination denied when
applicant fails to show by clear and convincing evidence that he
possessed the character and fitness required for admission to practice
law in Ohio -- Applicant prohibited from applying for any bar
examination earlier than the February 2004 bar examination.
(No. 01-1499 -- Submitted January 9, 2002 -- Decided April 24, 2002.)
ON REPORT of the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness of the
Supreme Court, No. 225.
__________________

Per Curiam. On August 1, 2000, David Lee Williams, a student at
Capital University Law School and a former police officer for the city of Huber
Heights, Ohio, filed an application to register for admission to the practice of law
in Ohio. As part of that application, Williams stated that his reason for leaving
employment with the city was "disability retirement." When two members of the
Dayton Bar Association personally interviewed him, Williams said that the
information on his application was true as stated.

However, during its background investigation of Williams, the National
Conference of Bar Examiners received information that he did not retire for
disability reasons but that the Huber Heights Police Department had asked him to
resign. On February 15, 2001, the Admissions Office of the Supreme Court of
Ohio advised Williams that, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. I(10)(B)(2)(e), a hearing
would be held with respect to his conduct leading to his resignation as a police
officer and with respect to disclosures on his application and before the
admissions committee interviewers.

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

As a result of a hearing, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on
Character and Fitness ("board") found that in 1994, while on duty, Williams
injured his neck and from that time he considered resigning from the police force
for reasons of disability. It further found that in January 1999, Williams used a
digital camera supplied by the police department to take at least one pornographic
photograph, which he loaded onto his computer and later "accidentally" showed
to a teenage girl. Later, Williams mentioned the fact to a fellow police officer
who, believing that the girl was under eighteen years of age, reported the matter to
his superiors. An investigation showed that the girl was, in fact, eighteen, but also
revealed that Williams had, allegedly, on a number of occasions, engaged in some
indiscreet activity with the girl.

The department gave Williams a notice of pending disciplinary action on
January 12, 1999, and advised him that although it had commenced an
investigation, it would provide him with charges only if his counsel was present.
On January 15, 1999, Williams, unaware of the nature of the possible charges
against him, worked out an agreement whereby he resigned from the police
department and the city agreed not to contest his claim for a disability pension.
As part of the agreement, the girl and her mother agreed not to press charges
against Williams for any of his conduct before January 15, 1999.

The panel concluded that, in his application and in his interview with the
bar association committee, Williams did not disclose in a forthright and honest
manner the details surrounding his resignation from the Huber Heights police
force. The panel concluded that Williams failed to show by clear and convincing
evidence that he possessed the character and fitness required for admission to the
practice of law in Ohio. It further recommended that he not be allowed to reapply
for admission until the February 2004 bar examination. The board adopted the
findings and conclusions of the panel and recommended that Williams be
disapproved for admission to the practice of law in Ohio and further
2

January Term, 2002
recommended that he not be permitted to reapply until the February 2004 bar
examination.

On review of the record, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and
recommendation of the board. Williams shall not be permitted to reapply until the
February 2004 bar examination. Costs are taxed to Williams.
Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________

Harry G. Beyoglides, Jr., for Dayton Bar Association.

Kenneth R. Donchatz and G. Jack Davis, Jr., for David Lee Williams.
__________________
3