Legal Opinion

In re Panepinto

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 20, 1999No. 98-1772PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

In order to be admitted to the practice of law in Ohio, the applicant must establish by clear and convincing evidence his “present character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to the practice of law in Ohio.” Gov.Bar R. I(12)(C)(6). Evidence of false statements, including material omissions, and lack of candor in the admissions process reflect poorly on an applicant’s present character, fitness, and moral qualifications. See Gov.Bar R. I(ll)(D)(S)(h), (i) and I(ll)(D)(4)(i), (j).

*400After reviewing the evidence, we adopt the findings and recommendation of the board. Panepinto’s…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. In re CalimOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. In re SalisburyOhio Supreme Court · 1994

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. In re CvammenOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  2. In re BagneOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  3. In Re Application of CallamOhio Supreme Court · 2017
  4. In Re Application of CallamOhio Supreme Court · 2017
  5. In re Application of Heckman (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2021

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API