In re Application of Kantor
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
1 In re Application of Kantor. 2 [Cite as In re Application of Kantor (1997), ______Ohio St.3d ______.] 3 Attorneys at law -- Application to register as candidate for admission 4 to the practice of law -- Application denied when applicant fails 5 to prove his character and fitness to practice law -- Applicant 6 may reapply for admission to take the July 1997 bar 7 examination subject to second complete character and fitness 8 investigation. 9 (No. 97-413 -- Submitted March 31, 1997 -- Decided June 18, 1997.) 10 ON CERTIFIED REPORT of the Board of Commissioners on Character 11 and Fitness of the Supreme Court, No. 150. 12 In January 1996, Matthew Kantor of Columbus ( applicant ) 13 registered for admission to the practice of law in Ohio and in April 1996 14 applied to take the July 1996 bar examination. Two members of the 15 Columbus Bar Association Admissions Committee ( committee ) 16 interviewed the applicant and concluded that he did not possess the 17 qualifications required for admission to the practice of law. Two other 18 committee members conducted another interview and likewise concluded 19 that the applicant did not possess the necessary qualifications. The 20 committee then filed a report with the Board of Commissioners on 1 Character and Fitness of the Supreme Court ( board ) and recommended 2 that applicant not be approved for admission to the practice of law. 3 Applicant appealed the committee s recommendation, and a hearing was 4 held in January 1997 before a panel of the board. 5 The panel received evidence with respect to applicant s employment 6 as a legal assistant with a Columbus, Ohio law firm, events leading to his 7 termination from that firm, and the manner in which he described these 8 events on his application for bar admission. Specifically, the panel received 9 evidence about the applicant s keeping of time sheets, his attitude toward 10 the tasks assigned to him, his tardy filing of documents with the court, and 11 the quality of his work. There was further evidence that applicant had 12 falsely answered a question on his admissions application. Two panel 13 members concluded that the applicant had the present character, fitness and 14 moral qualifications for admission to the practice of law in Ohio and 15 recommended that he be permitted to take the February 1997 Ohio Bar 16 examination. One panel member concluded that because of applicant s false 17 statement on his application, his failure to provide certain other information 18 during the application review process, his involvement in acts of dishonesty, 2 1 and his demonstrated lack of diligence and neglect of professional 2 obligations, applicant was not presently qualified to take the bar 3 examination and recommended that applicant not be allowed to sit for the 4 examination before July 1997. 5 The board adopted the findings of the dissenting panel member and 6 recommended that the current application of the applicant be disapproved, 7 that the applicant be permitted to reapply to take the July 1997 bar 8 examination, and that upon reapplication, the applicant be required to 9 submit to a second complete character and fitness investigation. 10 11 12 13 14 15 ______________________________________ Keith McNamara and Michael R. Moran, for Columbus Bar Association Admissions Committee. Charles W. Kettlewell, for applicant. _______________________________________ Per Curiam. We accept the board s findings, conclusions and 16 recommendations. Applicant is hereby authorized to reapply for 17 authorization to take the July 1997 bar examination. Costs of these 18 proceedings are taxed to the applicant. 3 1 2 3 4 5 Judgment accordingly. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent and would require applicant to wait and reapply for the July 1998 bar examination. 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
