Ohio Takes On Admissions Case

A preview of oral argument in a bar admission case by Dan Trevas on the web page of the Ohio Supreme Court

In re: Application of Cynthia M. Rodgers, Case no. 2019-1094
Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness

A 2019 Capital University Law School graduate from Muskingum County is challenging the assessment that she doesn’t have the character and fitness to be a lawyer and that she not be permitted to take the Ohio bar exam until 2024.

Two members of the Muskingum County Bar Association interviewed Cynthia M. Rodgers of Dresden and concluded that she possesses the character and fitness to sit for the bar exam. However, the Supreme Court’s Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness initiated its own investigation of Rodgers, and a three-member panel conducted a hearing in May 2019. The panel expressed concern that the 59-year-old Rodgers had been involved in almost 60 civil actions during her lifetime and disclosed many unpaid debts, including an estimated $340,000 in student loans.

Based on the panel hearing, the board recommended that Rodgers shouldn’t be permitted to take the bar exam in 2019, but should reapply for a character and fitness review five years later, in 2024.

Board Questions Legal Filings
Rodgers worked at Muskingum County Children Services from 1981 until 1985 then left the post to raise a family and return to school. She received an associate degree from Ohio University in 1991 and pursued a master of arts degree from OU from 1993 to 1995, but didn’t complete the program. In 2012, she received a bachelor’s degree from OU, majoring in philosophy pre-law.

Rodgers graduated from Capital’s graduate-level paralegal program in 2014, and obtained a legal intern license. She worked in Capital’s legal clinic, interned at the Gahanna City Prosecutor’s Office, and Southeastern Ohio Legal Services until she graduated law school in 2019.

Rodgers reported only working two years between 1985 and 2001, and stated she was injured in a tree-trimming accident and became disabled. Since then, she listed her employment as the administrator father’s estate from 2004 to 2014, and in similar roles for two of her brothers. She also served as a “volunteer research telecommuter and paralegal” for Miller Law Offices in Columbus from 2014 until 2016.

The board notes that during her adult life she has filed lawsuits regarding wrongful death, personal injury, medical malpractice, automobile sales, property law issues, and bankruptcy in various courts, ranging from municipal court to federal court. Several of the cases were filed in her role as administrator of her father’s and two brothers’ estates. The board maintains that Rodgers appears to be a person who would rather file a lawsuit than resolve an issue by negotiation or other means. It notes that she freely admitted for the most part she “didn’t know what she was doing” but felt that something had to be done.

The most recent lawsuit involved a claim for unpaid minimum wages by Columbus attorney Mark J. Miller. The board reports that Miller agreed to pay Rodgers mileage for commuting from her Muskingum County home to his Columbus office. She claimed she was entitled to payment, and Miller filed a complaint seeking to have the case dismissed and Rodgers declared a vexatious litigator. The matter was settled, and Miller agreed to pay Rodgers $16,500.

The board concludes that Rodgers filed multiple legal actions with little regard for their merit, or the expense and inconvenience they caused others.

Debt Levels Raise Board Concerns
The board reports that Rodgers had a number of debts, some of which had been outstanding for many years. It notes that Rodgers and her husband amassed almost $900,000 in student loan debt. Rodgers expressed that she didn’t have any idea of how much she has borrowed, but the board estimates it is about $340,000. The loans have been consolidated, and the couple entered a percentage of income repayment plan.

Rodgers states that because of the disability from the tree injury, she is not able to work full time and if she becomes a lawyer, she intends to work part time for legal aid. The board asserts that Rodgers openly neglected financial responsibilities and knowingly incurred a substantial amount of student loan debt that she admits probably will never be paid.

Rodgers’ conduct represents an ongoing lack of integrity, abuse of process, and neglect of financial responsibilities, the board concludes. It notes that Rodgers was able to function at a high level at Capital’s legal clinic under the supervision of lawyers, but asserts the practice of law requires character, fitness, and financial responsibility, which Rodgers failed to demonstrate she possessed.

Applicant Took Actions Based on Advice from Lawyers
Rodgers responds to the board’s conclusions by noting that many of the lawsuits and legal claims she made were undertaken with the assistance of lawyers. She states most of them were initiated through her role as an estate administrator and were filed to protect the interests of her family members. She wrote that, while in paralegal and law school, she reviewed many of the cases she filed earlier in her life and realized she made many errors.

Rodgers also maintains that none of her student loans are in default and that she signed an agreement in 2001 with the U.S. Department of Education that will allow her to make income-based payments of her student loans for 10 years in a public service job and have the balance of her loans forgiven.

Rodgers admits she is not a typical bar exam applicant, having been married for 37 years, raised three daughters who graduated from Ohio State University, and dealt with hardships out of her control, including the injury to her leg. Rodgers maintains that while she has made errors in the past, a five-year sanction isn’t warranted. She produced letters of recommendation from Capital professors and staff attesting to her abilities, and is in good standing with all her creditors.

Rodgers notes that bar applicants who have been found to engage in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation have received less than five-year disciplinary suspensions. She is urging the Court to allow her to take the July 2020 bar exam.

Bar Association Not Participating in Oral Argument
The Muskingum County Bar Association did not file a merit brief in the matter and isn’t permitted to participate in oral argument.

–Dan Trevas

Docket entries, memoranda, briefs (including amicus briefs), and other information about this case may be accessed through the case docket.

Contacts
Cynthia M. Rodgers, representing herself: 740.575.6870

Representing the Muskingum County Bar Association, Jillian Von Gunten: 740.450.7950

(Mike Frisch)