Too Many Incidents

The Ohio Supreme Court denied admission to a graduate of the Northern Kentucky University Chase College of Law based on a number of incidents described in the court’s opinion.

A. Incident One

When Johns was in high school, he had an altercation with another student on a school bus. Johns testified that the other student started harassing him from behind and that Johns therefore “swatted” at him to make him stop. The student ended up with a bloody nose, and Johns received an in-school suspension. During the hearing, Johns claimed that he unintentionally hit the student’s face and that he had no idea how the student’s nose became bloody. The school bus driver told the school that Johns had hit the student intentionally.

The panel included this incident to show Johns’s history of failing “to take responsibility for his actions and resulting consequences.”

B. Incident Two

Also when Johns was in high school, he and a friend broke into a video store and stole drug paraphernalia. Johns pled guilty to trespassing and had to perform community service. Johns acknowledged his wrongdoing, but he never took full responsibility for his actions. Johns testified that his friend had talked him into breaking into the store, and Johns portrayed himself as merely a follower rather than as an active participant in the crime.

C. Incident Three

The next incident occurred in 2007 or 2008 when Johns was working at a ski resort near Akron. According to Johns, he was authorized to use the resort’s equipment as a perk of employment. One evening Johns borrowed a snowboard from the resort but failed to return it as required. Johns testified that he had inadvertently put the borrowed snowboard on a travel rack and had taken it home with him.

Johns’s recollection of the next events was unclear, but either one week or one day later, he took the snowboard back to the resort. But rather than telling his employer that he had kept the snowboard by mistake, he hatched a plan to return the board at the end of the night to make it look like he had checked the board out earlier that day. As part of his plan, Johns put a sticker on the snowboard to make it look like his personal board in order to sneak the board back into the resort. Once inside the resort, Johns rode the snowboard for a few hours until he was escorted to his manager’s office and then removed from the property. Johns was charged with theft but was subsequently convicted of the lesser charge  of unauthorized use of property.

D. Incidents Four and Five

The next two incidents involve traffic violations. In 2011, Johns met with friends at a bar where he had two drinks over several hours. On his way home, Johns became nauseated and was unable to drive further. He pulled his car into a parking lot and attempted to call someone to pick him up. According to Johns, he was sitting in his car with the door open when the police approached. Johns did not believe he was impaired, but he was charged with being in physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Johns stated that he was required to pay a fine and attend a two-day class as a result of this charge.

The second incident occurred in 2014, when Johns was found guilty of reckless operation of a motor vehicle and having an open container of alcohol in his car. Johns indicated that he was again wrongly accused, but that he lacked the money to hire an attorney to defend against the charges.

Johns also failed to disclose the open-container violation on his lawschool application. When questioned about the omission, he claimed that it was simply an honest oversight.

E. Incident Six

Johns joined the military in 2014 but was discharged from service before completing basic training. Johns initially testified that he resigned from thenmilitary following a few phone calls from his daughter, who was upset and crying because he was away from her. On his bar application, however, Johns stated that he had been granted a discharge because his military recruiter falsely promised to send him to officer-training school once he completed basic training. When confronted with the discrepancy, Johns explained that the recruiter’s lying was a “major reason, but [his] daughter was the bigger reason.”

The panel found Johns’s explanations inherently and unnecessarily deceptive. According to the panel, Johns was able to leave the military during basic training for no particular reason yet he developed these different scenarios to justify his departure. As a result, the panel was left without a clear and concisenunderstanding of Johns’s military discharge.

F. Incident Seven

In 2018, Johns was charged with domestic violence following an altercation with his younger brother. Johns denied striking his brother, but he admitted to having a heated argument with his brother and shoving him in the shoulder. Johns blamed his brother’s use of illegal drugs for the incident, claiming that his brother had become confrontational. Because he was about to start law school, Johns decided to resolve the matter by pleading guilty to a reduced charge of disorderly conduct.

G. Incident Eight

The next incident occurred in 2020, while Johns was in law school. A former girlfriend of Johns had obtained a temporary civil-protection order against him. Before a full hearing on the matter, Johns was charged with criminally violating the protection order. He was also charged with criminal damaging of property.

The trial court found Johns guilty of both charges and placed him on probation. The court also granted a five-year civil-protection order following the full hearing.

Johns provided the panel with several explanations as to why the civil-protection order and the criminal charge should have been dismissed. Johns filed appeals of both judgments, but both appeals were denied. He also filed a motion for early termination of his probation in 2022, but that motion was denied as well.

Based on the foregoing, the panel found that Johns has never acknowledged any wrongdoing on his part in regard to these incidents and continues to maintain that he was wrongly accused and adjudicated.

H. Incident Nine

The next issue concerns Johns’s failure to disclose in his bar registration application that he had filed a civil action against the former girlfriend who was granted the protection order. In July 2021, Johns filed a pro se complaint alleging that the former girlfriend had engaged in fraud, defamation, infliction of emotional distress, replevin, negligence, sexual assault, and tortious interference with a business relationship. Johns had several opportunities to disclose this matter during his bar-application process, but he failed to do so in each instance. When asked by bar counsel to explain his failure to disclose this information, Johns stated that he did not have a good explanation.

I. Incident Ten

 The final matter concerns a letter that was sent to this court’s Office of Bar Admissions that raised several concerns about Johns’s honesty and truthfulness. The letter was sent by an attorney who was appointed as the guardian ad litem for Johns’s daughter in a custody case. The attorney alleged that Johns had lied to him during the child-custody investigation that he conducted for the court. Among other claims, the attorney averred that Johns did not answer truthfully in response to several questions about his criminal history.

Johns did not dispute these allegations during the hearing. Instead, he told the panel that he did not believe that he was required to disclose to the guardian ad litem any criminal matters that were expunged or were still pending on appeal. When questioned, Johns conceded that he had also failed to disclose matters that had not been expunged.

The panel gave some weight to the attorney’s letter, understanding that Johns was not under oath or obligated to disclose certain things. Even so, the panel was troubled by Johns’s dishonesty and his attempts to justify his actions. Specifically, the panel noted that Johns had taken exception to the attorney’s submitting information that was obtained through his role as guardian ad litem without a court order and that Johns had filed a motion for sanctions against the guardian ad litem in the custody case.

The court

Given Johns’s pattern of criminal behavior spanning over 20 years and continuing into the bar-application process, his failure to take responsibility for his missteps, his failure to make required disclosures of information on his bar application, and his misrepresentations and lack of honesty during the admission’s process, we adopt the board’s finding that Johns has failed to demonstrate the current character and fitness to practice law in Ohio.

(Mike Frisch)