In re Panepinto

Ohio Supreme Court

In re Panepinto

704 N.E.2d 564, 84 Ohio St. 3d 397

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 20, 1999

DocketNo. 98-1772

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 704 N.E.2d 564 (In re Panepinto) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Panepinto, 704 N.E.2d 564, 84 Ohio St. 3d 397 (Ohio 1999).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

In order to be admitted to the practice of law in Ohio, the applicant must establish by clear and convincing evidence his “present character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to the practice of law in Ohio.” Gov.Bar R. I(12)(C)(6). Evidence of false statements, including material omissions, and lack of candor in the admissions process reflect poorly on an applicant’s present character, fitness, and moral qualifications. See Gov.Bar R. I(ll)(D)(S)(h), (i) and I(ll)(D)(4)(i), (j).

[400]*400After reviewing the evidence, we adopt the findings and recommendation of the board. Panepinto’s false and incomplete answers in his application, his continued dishonesty during part of the admissions process, and his attempts to excuse or minimize his conduct at the hearing establish that he does not presently possess the integrity to be admitted to practice law in Ohio. See, e.g., In re Application of Calim (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 96, 694 N.E.2d 896; In re Application of Salisbury (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 403, 632 N.E.2d 1288. Panepinto is permitted to reapply to take the July 1999 bar examination upon the submission of new applications to register as a candidate for admission to the practice of law and to take the bar examination, and upon further submission to a new character and fitness examination.¹

Judgment accordingly.

Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Moyer, C. j., Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

In order to be admitted to the practice of law in Ohio, the applicant must establish by clear and convincing evidence his “present character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to the practice of law in Ohio.” Gov.Bar R. I(12)(C)(6). Evidence of false statements, including material omissions, and lack of candor in the admissions process reflect poorly on an applicant’s present character, fitness, and moral qualifications. See Gov.Bar R. I(ll)(D)(S)(h), (i) and I(ll)(D)(4)(i), (j).

[400]*400After reviewing the evidence, we adopt the findings and recommendation of the board. Panepinto’s false and incomplete answers in his application, his continued dishonesty during part of the admissions process, and his attempts to excuse or minimize his conduct at the hearing establish that he does not presently possess the integrity to be admitted to practice law in Ohio. See, e.g., In re Application of Calim (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 96, 694 N.E.2d 896; In re Application of Salisbury (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 403, 632 N.E.2d 1288. Panepinto is permitted to reapply to take the July 1999 bar examination upon the submission of new applications to register as a candidate for admission to the practice of law and to take the bar examination, and upon further submission to a new character and fitness examination.¹

Judgment accordingly.

Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Moyer, C. j., Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

704 N.E.2d 564, 84 Ohio St. 3d 397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-panepinto-ohio-1999.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack