Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In Re Application of Callam

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 21, 2017No. 2016-1240Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partO’Donnell, J.

{¶ 22} I concur in the court’s decision to revoke Michael Alexander Callam’s license to practice law in Ohio effectively immediately, but contrary to the majority, I would permanently preclude Callam from reapplying for admission to the practice of law in Ohio.

{¶ 23} In In re Application of Swendiman, 146 Ohio St.3d 444, 2016-Ohio-2813, 57 N.E.3d 1155, ¶ 13, this court stated:

An applicant to the Ohio bar must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he or she “possesses the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to the practice of law.” Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(1).…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. In re BagneOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  2. In re PanepintoOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  3. In re AboyadeOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  4. In Re Application of SwendimanOhio Supreme Court · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API