## Facts

- Frank H. Chapman II applied for admission to the Ohio bar; the local admissions committee initially recommended approval, and he passed the February 1993 bar examination.
- Before admission, the Supreme Court received information that Chapman had been named in a civil enforcement action brought by the Ohio Attorney General alleging deceptive and unconscionable sales practices under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act.
- Materials submitted to the Court indicated Chapman resolved the Attorney General’s action through a consent dismissal that included conditions reflecting responsibility for misconduct-related obligations.
- The Ohio Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness commenced formal proceedings based on the civil action and Chapman’s conduct.
- At the character-and-fitness hearing, Chapman acknowledged involvement in deceptive practices associated with the business at issue.
- A hearing panel found Chapman had not carried his burden to prove present good character and fitness and recommended deferral of admission to allow time for rehabilitation.
- The full Board unanimously adopted the panel’s findings and recommended a defined waiting period before Chapman could reapply, followed by a renewed character-and-fitness inquiry.
- Chapman filed objections to the Board’s report in the Supreme Court of Ohio.

## Issues

1. Whether an applicant who engaged in recent deceptive and unconscionable business practices met the burden to prove present good character and fitness for admission to the Ohio bar.
2. If admission was denied, what minimum period should apply before the applicant could reapply and attempt to demonstrate rehabilitation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio denied Chapman’s application for admission because he failed to prove the good character and fitness required to practice law.
- The Court accepted the Board’s findings and general recommendation that Chapman had not shown sufficient rehabilitation.
- The Court modified the reapplication timetable, ordering that Chapman could not reapply for admission to the Ohio bar before May 1995.

## Legal Principles

- Admission to practice law requires proof of present good character, fitness, and moral qualifications; passing the bar examination alone is insufficient.
- The applicant bears the burden to establish fitness for admission; unresolved doubts are weighed against admission to protect the public, the courts, and the profession.
- Recent, serious dishonest or deceptive conduct— including civil misconduct—may demonstrate a lack of present fitness and can justify denial of admission.
- Claimed rehabilitation must be supported by persuasive evidence over a meaningful period; recency of misconduct may make rehabilitation proof inadequate at the time of application.
- A denial may be without prejudice to a later application, subject to a waiting period and a renewed character-and-fitness investigation.

## Conclusion

The court denied admission because Chapman did not meet his burden to prove present good character and fitness in light of recent deceptive sales-related misconduct, while permitting a future application no earlier than May 1995 after additional time to demonstrate rehabilitation.


In re Application of Chapman, 630 N.E.2d 322 (Ohio 1994)