Rehabilitation Over Conviction: Supreme Court of Ohio Clarifies the Character-and-Fitness Standard for Bar Applicants with Serious Felony Histories

1. Introduction

In In re Application of Notestine, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-2415, the Supreme Court of Ohio confronted a recurring but seldom-litigated question: How much weight should a past felony conviction—and the life choices that produced it—carry when determining an applicant’s present moral fitness to practice law?

Applicant Bethany Joy Notestine, a University of Cincinnati College of Law graduate, sought registration as a candidate for admission to the Ohio Bar and permission to take the July 2025 examination. Her background included:

• Two minor-misdemeanor marijuana possessions (2004, 2006)
• A 2005 Ohio fifth-degree felony for heroin possession
• A 2008 federal conviction for conspiracy to distribute heroin and cocaine (conduct that would be a first- or second-degree felony under Ohio law) resulting in a 10-year sentence
• A 2017 minor-misdemeanor disorderly-conduct conviction post-release

After extensive hearings, the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness recommended approval (8-2). The case arrived at the Court because Gov.Bar R. I(13)(D)(5) mandates Supreme Court review when an applicant has a conviction that would constitute a first- or second-degree felony under Ohio law.

The Court, in a per curiam opinion joined by five Justices, approved Notestine’s character and fitness and allowed her to sit for the exam. Two Justices dissented, arguing the applicant failed to demonstrate “full and complete rehabilitation.” The decision therefore crystallises the legal test Ohio will apply to similar applicants and reiterates that rehabilitation may, in appropriate circumstances, eclipse even serious criminal history.

2. Summary of the Judgment

1. The majority held that Ms. Notestine proved by clear and convincing evidence that she currently possesses the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications under Gov.Bar R. I(13)(D).
2. The Court emphasised six factors:
   • Length of time since the felony convictions (17+ years)
   • Satisfactory completion of incarceration, community control, and supervised release
   • Substantial, documented rehabilitation efforts while incarcerated and thereafter
   • Professional achievements (massage-therapy licence, cosmetology certifications, legal education)
   • Candour during the admissions process
   • Restoration of rights and expungement of the Ohio felony
3. Conditional approval was granted: she may sit for the July 2025 bar examination provided all other administrative prerequisites are met.
4. Dissent (Hawkins, J., joined by Fischer, J.)—characterised the record as showing a “pattern” of post-sentence misconduct (citing the 2017 disorderly-conduct conviction and earlier marijuana use) and concluded the applicant remains unfit.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The opinion relied chiefly on three prior “character & fitness” decisions:

• In re Application of Davis, 38 Ohio St.2d 273 (1974) – First articulated that felony conviction does not automatically bar admission but places a heavy burden of proving rehabilitation.
• In re Application of Keita, 73 Ohio St.3d 392 (1995) – Reaffirmed Davis; stressed that serious criminal past requires “full and complete” rehabilitation shown by clear and convincing evidence.
• In re Application of Poignon, 2012-Ohio-2915 – Clarified that felony conviction “does not demonstrate, per se, lack of moral character,” echoing Davis and directing boards to look at time elapsed, rehabilitation, candour, and social contributions.

By deploying these precedents, the Court signalled continuity with its existing jurisprudence while expanding on how to weigh restoration-of-rights statutes (R.C. 2967.16(C) and 2953.34) in the character-and-fitness calculus.

3.2 Legal Reasoning of the Majority

1. Statutory & Rule Framework
   • Ohio Constitution art. IV, §2(B)(1)(g) – vests exclusive original jurisdiction over bar admissions in the Court.
   • Gov.Bar R. I(13)(D) – sets burden of proof (clear and convincing) and enumerates nine mitigating/aggravating factors.
   • Gov.Bar R. I(13)(D)(5) – triggers Supreme Court review when the applicant’s conviction maps onto a 1st- or 2nd-degree Ohio felony.
   • R.C. 2967.16(C) & 2953.34 – permit automatic restoration of rights and expungement, which the Court used to demonstrate societal/legal forgiveness.
2. Application of Factors
   • Recency & seriousness: 17 years since last felony; only one minor-misdemeanor since release.
   • Underlying causes: early self-medication for migraines, association with drug-dealing circles.
   • Evidence of rehabilitation: completion of 500-hour RDAP, peer mentoring, UNICOR performance awards, higher education, entrepreneurial success, pro-bono legal work (Ohio Innocence Project, Public Defender).
   • Positive social contributions: helping wrongfully-convicted individuals; running small businesses employing others.
   • Candour: full disclosure of criminal record, acceptance of responsibility.
3. Public-Perception Consideration The majority concluded that admitting an applicant with a compelling rehabilitation narrative could actually enhance public confidence by demonstrating the profession’s openness to redemption when rigorously proven.

3.3 Anticipated Impact on Ohio Law and Beyond

The decision’s practical and doctrinal implications include:

• Clarified Weight of Restoration-of-Rights Statutes — The Court explicitly tied the expungement and automatic restoration provisions to character-and-fitness approval, indicating that once civil disabilities are lifted, the bar should treat the applicant nearly on par with those never convicted—if rehabilitation is convincingly shown.
• Lower (but still substantial) Temporal Threshold — Prior cases often involved 20- to 30-year crime-free intervals. Notestine was 10 years post-release, signalling that successful applicants need not wait decades, provided other factors (education, service, candour) strongly favour admission.
• Blueprint for Applicants with Federal Convictions — Because federal convictions cannot be “expunged” under Ohio law, the Court’s reasoning that had she been convicted under Ohio law she would be eligible for restoration offers a roadmap: show that the functional equivalent under Ohio statutes would trigger restoration.
• Potential Persuasive Authority Nationwide — Character-and-fitness boards in other jurisdictions frequently cite Ohio opinions; this precedent may inform debates on second chances for the formerly incarcerated nationwide.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Clear and Convincing Evidence — More than “preponderance” (51%) but less than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Think of it as the firm belief or conviction standard.
• Expungement — A court order that seals (and, under Ohio’s modern statute, deletes) records of conviction; legally, it restores the individual to the status they had before the conviction.
• Restoration of Civil Rights — Upon completion of sentence (and not being convicted of certain enumerated offenses), many rights—voting, serving on a jury, holding office—are automatically restored under R.C. 2967.16(C).
• Gov.Bar R. I(13) Factors — A checklist the Court must consider: recency, seriousness, rehabilitation, social contributions, candour, mental health, evidence of positive change, and public perception.
• UNICOR — A Federal Bureau of Prisons program offering job training and work opportunities to inmates, aimed at easing reentry.

5. Conclusion

In re Application of Notestine reaffirms but meaningfully extends Ohio’s long-standing doctrine that a felony conviction is not a lifetime ban from the legal profession. The Court crystallised a rehabilitation-focused, multi-factor test in which time elapsed, candour, demonstrable change, and societal reintegration may outweigh even serious criminal histories. While the dissent underscores the profession’s duty to safeguard public trust, the majority has charted a path that integrates notions of restorative justice with the rigorous demands of bar admission.

For future applicants, the opinion delivers a clear message: Redemption is attainable, but only through transparent, sustained, and well-documented transformation. For regulators and courts, it supplies an updated framework for balancing past misconduct against present character in an era increasingly attuned to second-chance policies.