In re Application of Chapman

Frank H. Chapman II (defendant) applied to take the Ohio bar exam, and an investigation was conducted into his character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to practice. Chapman passed the bar exam shortly thereafter. However, before Chapman was admitted to practice, the Admissions Office of the Ohio Supreme Court received notice that Chapman had been named as a defendant in a civil lawsuit filed by the state. The lawsuit involved deceptive and unconscionable sales practices by Chapman and his father in connection with his father’s business. Consequently, the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness (Board) began an investigation into Chapman’s character and fitness. In a hearing before a panel, Chapman admitted to engaging in deceptive and unconscionable sales practices. The panel found that Chapman had not sustained his burden of proving good character and fitness for admission to practice law. The panel recommended that Chapman not be admitted to practice until he could demonstrate that he possessed the requisite character and fitness. The panel believed that Chapman would need at least two years to demonstrate the requisite character and fitness. The Board unanimously adopted the panel’s report, recommending that Chapman not be permitted to reapply for admission for approximately two-and-a-half years, after which he would undergo further examination into his character, fitness, and moral qualifications. Chapman filed objections to the findings and recommendations of the Board.