Page 11 - March-April-CBA-Report

Fortunately for applicants and admis- sions committee members alike, the Supreme Court of Ohio has recently adopted two amendments to Rule I of the Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio designed to clarify and stream- line the character and fitness evaluation process.
The first amendment removes evidence of mental or psychological disorder as an enumerated factor for consideration related to an applicant’s character, fitness, and moral qualifications. An applicant’s mental health is now only relevant where there is associated conduct that calls into question an applicant’s character, fitness, and moral qualifications, such as a crim- inal offense, substance abuse issues, or financial irresponsibility. Although this amendment removes just one item from the long list of categories of information to be collected in the application process, the import of the revision cannot be overstated. Applicants who suffer from depression, anxiety, or any other mental or psychological condition can now seek treatment without any concern they will have to disclose a resulting diagnosis or have their “character, fitness and moral qualifications” scrutinized for the same. It is not clear whether that result was what motivated the Supreme Court of Ohio’s clarification, but any change that facil- itates the provision of needed medical treatment is one that should be applauded.
The second amendment is equally laudable; the Supreme Court of Ohio expanded the list of impermissible factors for consideration in determining an applicant’s character, fitness, and moral qualifications to include gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and expres- sion, and marital status. These factors supplement the previously enumerated impermissible factors of age, sex, race, color, national origin, or religion. It should be noted that Rule 8.4(g) of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct already prohibited attorneys from engaging in discriminatory conduct based on, among other things, gender and sexual orien- tation, but the Supreme Court of Ohio’s recent amendment removes any latent ambiguity from those generalized terms
by articulating more precisely the factors that are off limits. More importantly, in a time when LGBTQ+ rights continue to be debated around the country and used as fodder in polarized political discourse, the Supreme Court of Ohio has sent a clear message to bar applicants that they are free to be themselves without risking an adverse determination in the licensure process.
Notably, these changes set Ohio apart from other neighboring states. Kentucky still requires disclosure of mental or psychological disorders, and neither Kentucky nor Indiana expressly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orienta- tion, gender identity and expression.
Hine is an attorney with Vorys and a member and former chair of the CBA Admissions Committee. Bergman is an attorney with Vorys. If you’re interested in joining the CBA Admissions Committee, contact Maria Palermo at mpalermo@ cincybar.org.
Don’t Hire Just Any Mediator. Hire an Experienced Litigator, Former Judge, Vorys Attorney.
“Former judge Callan was very well prepared and knew the issues prior to the mediation. She was engaged and had perseverance throughout
the mediation. She was empathetic but objective. We resolved the case and I would definitely work with her again.”
– M.C.
Elizabeth “Libby” Callan, former Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judge and Of Counsel at Vorys
Vorys’ mediation team includes a number of former judges who are uniquely qualified to serve as mediators for your disputes. These former judges and other Vorys mediators’ sole goal is to guide parties to a fair and equitable resolution, defraying the costs of a potential trial.
Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP
301 East Fourth Street, Suite 3500 Great American Tower Cincinnati, OH 45202
vorys.com
THE REPORT | March/April 2023 | CincyBar.org
11