Ode To Ohio: With A Coda

As readers may know, I believe that maximum transparency is the best way to provide reasonable assurance that bar discipline is imposed fairly and absent the influence of what the American Bar Association’s Model Rules Preamble calls the “parochial or self-interested concerns of the bar.”

At the top of the list of the most transparency discipline systems is Ohio. The responsible administrators seem to have mastered the technology required to deliver a full picture of the arc of every bar discipline case.

Mastery of technology seems to have expanded to the admissions process as described by Csaba Sukosd

It’s a new year and a convenient, new beginning for prospective Ohio attorneys.

Starting today, the administrative process for admittance into the state’s bar will be completed online.

The Supreme Court of Ohio’s Office of Bar Admissions finished a transition, which began before the pandemic, from a paper-only system to an electronic one.

“This new format makes us more efficient, freeing us up to be more available and pay attention to other things,” Attorney Services Director Gina Palmer said.

The digital transition allows applicants to submit the required documents electronically, and gives them the convenience of paying fees by credit card, debit card, or an electronic bank transfer. Previously, the Supreme Court only accepted cashier’s checks or money orders.

The procedure to determine whether candidates are eligible to pursue an Ohio law license takes months. During that time, the Court investigates and assesses if a person’s character, fitness, and moral qualifications to practice in the state are met.

If approved, those seeking to become attorneys must take, and pass, the Ohio Bar Examination – administered every February and July.

Update: A comment takes issue with the Ode. To clarify, I applaud the process and not necessarily any particular result.

When the Morton decision was issued, I posted the summary on the court’s web page without commentary. Having reviewed the opinion and dissent (and by coincidence learning that he was my classmate at Western Reserve in the late 1960s), I agree with the dissent that the speech was protected and Rule 8.2 misapplied.

I myself believe that Rule 8.2 can be and is used as a weapon to stifle legitimate criticism of the judiciary. Other Rules such as 3.3 and 3.5 adequately protect the courts and litigation process. 

Illinois, in particular, overprosecutes Rule 8.2 cases (see here and here, for example).

I would abolish it.

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals – my home Bar – declined to adopt Rule 8.2. Bravo!

Judges need thick skins. (Mike Frisch)