Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio disapproved Micheál Habib Howard’s application to register as a candidate for admission to the Ohio bar. The court adopted findings that his criminal history, academic misconduct, and evasive or incomplete disclosures demonstrated that he had not established the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Howard proved by clear and convincing evidence that he possessed the character, fitness, and moral qualifications required for admission to the practice of law in Ohio.
- Whether Howard's criminal record, academic misconduct, pattern of conduct, and lack of candor justified disapproval of his application for admission.
Holdings
- A bar-admission applicant bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant possesses the character, fitness, and moral qualifications required for admission.
- Howard did not establish that he was a proper candidate for admission because his criminal record, academic misconduct, pattern of disregard for the law, and evasive or misleading conduct demonstrated that he lacked the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications.
Key quotations
“An applicant has the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he or she possesses the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualification for admission to the practice of law.” (at 221)
“We adopt the board’s findings and recommendation to disapprove applicant’s request.” (at 223)
Factual background
Howard had misdemeanor convictions for obstructing official business, disorderly conduct, and attempted possession of marijuana, along with numerous other criminal accusations and traffic or building-code violations. He had also been suspended from law school for plagiarism and previously received a warning for copying another student's homework. During character-and-fitness proceedings, the board and the Supreme Court found him vague, evasive, and insufficiently candid about his criminal history, plagiarism, and involvement with jointly owned rental properties.
Procedural history
Howard applied to register as a candidate for admission to practice law in Ohio and to take the February 2005 bar examination. The Toledo Bar Association Admissions Committee disapproved his qualifications based on his criminal record and law-school honor-code violation. Howard appealed to the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness, which recommended disapproval but suggested that he be allowed to reapply for the July 2007 examination; he did not object to the board's findings or recommendation. The Supreme Court of Ohio adopted the findings and recommendation and disapproved his application.