Opinion
No. 93-443
Submitted April 20, 1993 —
Decided June 16, 1993.
ON REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness, No. 84.
From August 1989 to December 1991, applicant Joseph E. Piro attended the University of Akron School of Law. In January 1992, he applied to take the Ohio bar examination and, as a part of the application and admissions process, was interviewed by two members of the Admissions Committee of the Akron Bar. Of concern to both members was Piro's failure to disclose on his law school admission application numerous criminal charges and convictions dating from 1976 through 1985, and the filing of criminal charges against him in October 1991 for unlawful restraint and impersonating a police officer. As a result of these concerns, the committee recommended that Piro's application be approved with the qualification that he be "closely monitored and placed on a period of probation."
Pursuant to Gov. Bar R. I(10)(E), a qualified recommendation of approval is considered as a recommendation that the applicant not be admitted to the practice of law. Accordingly, Piro appealed the committee's recommendation, and the matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness on November 23, 1992.
At the hearing, Piro explained that approximately six months before completing his law school application, he conferred with an attorney about his extensive criminal record, the prospects of having it expunged, and its likely effect on his acceptance to law school. From their conversation, Piro "inferred" that the attorney was "suggesting" that he omit his criminal history from the application and disclose it only after the expungement process was completed. Piro never initiated expungement proceedings and in January 1989 submitted his application to the University of Akron School of Law. Despite clear instructions on the application form to list all arrests and criminal charges (including those which had been expunged), he deliberately failed to do so. Piro made full disclosure to school officials only after his acceptance to law school and after the commencement of classes in August 1989.
A letter from the attorney to the law school indicates that while he may have advised Piro to expunge his criminal record before applying to law school, he under no circumstances advised Piro to withhold this information unless the record had been expunged.
Piro also explained that the charges filed against him in October 1991 resulted from his use of a sheriff's badge and handcuffs to make a "citizen's arrest" of persons he suspected in the theft of his personal property. All charges related to this incident were subsequently dismissed.
Piro's employer, Robert Higham, a respected member of the Akron bar, also testified as a character witness. Higham testified that Piro had done excellent work for his firm and had encountered no ethical problems while employed there. He further testified that he would have no reservations about offering Piro a full-time position with his firm if one were to become available.
With noted reservations, the panel recommended that Piro's application be approved, citing the lapse of time since Piro's prior charges and convictions, the dismissal of the October 1991 charges, the favorable reference from Higham, and the fact that Piro had already been prevented from taking the July 1992 bar examination as a result of this proceeding.
Upon its consideration of the panel's findings, the board recommended that Piro's application be denied. It reasoned that Piro's falsification of his law school application was deliberately designed to enhance his chances for admission and that his conduct exhibited a lack of candor and integrity necessary to the legal profession. Further, the board considered Piro's attempted justification of the falsification as evidencing an unwillingness to take full responsibility for his actions. Finally, even though the charges for unlawful restraint and impersonating a police officer were eventually dismissed, the board considered the circumstances leading to the charges to reflect a cavalier approach to the law and a lack of reliable judgment on Piro's part. The board further recommended that Piro be permitted to reapply to take the February 1994 bar examination, and that upon reapplication he be required to submit to the full interview process.
Glinsek, Higham Kristoff and JoAnn Harris, for applicant.
Gerald R. Leipply, for the Akron Bar Association.
Having reviewed the record in this proceeding, we agree with the board that Piro has not established by clear and convincing evidence the necessary character and fitness for admission to the practice of law in Ohio. Gov. Bar R. I(11)(C)(6). Accordingly, his applications to register as a candidate for admission to the practice of law and to take the bar examination are disapproved. Piro may reapply to take the February 1994 bar examination and, upon reapplication, shall be subject to full review of his character and fitness.
Applications denied.
MOYER, C.J., A.W. SWEENEY, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur.