In re Calim, 694 N.E.2d 896 (Ohio 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
In re Calim, 694 N.E.2d 896 (Ohio 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: In re Panepinto, 704 N.E.2d 564 (Ohio 1999)
How cited ↗
Cited for
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In re Application of Calim
No. 98-51.
Ohio Supreme Court.
Jun 10, 1998.
Published opinion
694 N.E.2d 896
1998 Ohio LEXIS 1517
Aman J. Calim, pro se. , Benjamin F. Yale, for the Auglaize County Bar Association.
Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

Lead Opinion

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings, conclusion, and recommendation of the board. Applicant’s current application for admission to the bar is disapproved. Applicant is permitted to reapply for admission to the practice of law in Ohio by submitting a new application that contains complete, up-to-date information on all matters raised by the local admissions committee as well as any new matter that may have arisen after the hearing.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur. Lundberg Stratton, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.

Concurrence in Part

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part. I agree with the majority in disapproving the application for admission, but I would not allow the applicant to reapply. Applicant’s long history of problems demonstrates a basic character flaw and a lack of high standards of integrity and honesty. He has demonstrated that he is not qualified to reach the high ethical standards demanded of our bar. Therefore, I dissent from the majority’s decision to allow him to reapply.