## Facts

- Daniel Robert Goodstein applied for admission to the practice of law in Ohio, triggering a character-and-fitness review by a hearing panel of the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness.
- The panel identified three main problem areas focused on truthfulness in Goodstein’s past conduct and in his application materials.
- First, the panel found that Goodstein obtained more than $6,000 in unemployment benefits by misrepresenting his employment status to the Ohio labor authorities.
- Goodstein did not disclose the unemployment-benefits fraud matter during the admissions process, and once it was discovered, he characterized it as a misunderstanding; the panel rejected that characterization.
- The panel also found that Goodstein misstated or overstated the extent of his repayment arrangement relating to the money owed from the fraudulently obtained benefits.
- Second, Goodstein answered on his bar application that he had not been subject to undergraduate discipline, but his university reported two disciplinary actions for underage drinking.
- Goodstein claimed he forgot those incidents, but the panel credited testimony indicating he had discussed the incidents while preparing his bar application, which undermined the “forgotten” explanation.
- Third, Goodstein disclosed only two of three traffic citations on his application; the panel noted that the omission might be minor by itself but became meaningful when combined with the other misstatements and omissions.
- The panel recommended disapproval of the application and recommended that Goodstein not be permitted to apply again until he fully repaid the unemployment-benefits overpayment with interest; the full Board adopted that recommendation and submitted it to the Supreme Court of Ohio.

## Issues

1. Did Goodstein carry his burden to show present good moral character and fitness for admission to the Ohio bar where he committed unemployment-benefits fraud and then made material omissions and misrepresentations during the admissions process?
2. If the application was disapproved, what conditions should apply to any future application?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio accepted the Board’s recommendation and disapproved Goodstein’s application for admission to the practice of law in Ohio.
- The court concluded that Goodstein failed to establish the honesty and candor required for admission, based on the benefits fraud and the pattern of incomplete and inaccurate disclosures.
- The court conditioned any future application on Goodstein’s full repayment of the unemployment-benefits overpayment, with interest.
- Any later application would be subject to the character-and-fitness process, including further investigation into whether Goodstein had shown genuine rehabilitation.

## Legal Principles

- The applicant bears the burden to prove present good moral character and fitness to practice law.
- Honesty and complete disclosure in the admissions process are required; lack of candor in the application process can justify disapproval independent of the underlying misconduct.
- Fraud involving public benefits is strong evidence of deficient character, especially when the applicant minimizes the conduct or gives incomplete explanations.
- In evaluating character and fitness, the court may consider the cumulative effect of multiple omissions and misstatements, even if one item (such as a minor traffic matter) might carry little weight in isolation.
- Restitution and evidence of rehabilitation may be required before a previously disapproved applicant may seek admission again.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Ohio disapproved Daniel Robert Goodstein’s application for admission because unemployment-benefits fraud, coupled with omissions and misrepresentations about that fraud, undergraduate discipline, and a traffic citation, showed a present lack of honesty and candor inconsistent with the standards for admission; the court permitted a future application only after full repayment of the unemployment-benefits overpayment with interest and further character-and-fitness review.


In re Application of Goodstein, 1 N.E.3d 328 (2013)