Shading the Truth Disqualifies: Ohio Supreme Court Denies UBE-Transfer Admission for Abandonment and Lack of Candor, but Allows Rehabilitation Window

Case: In re Application of Dempsey, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-5059

Court: Supreme Court of Ohio (per curiam; all justices concurring)

Date: November 12, 2025

Docket: No. 2025-0402; Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness No. 899

Introduction

In this bar-admissions character-and-fitness decision, the Supreme Court of Ohio disapproved the application of Kristen Elise Dempsey, an Oregon-licensed attorney seeking admission to the Ohio bar by transferred Uniform Bar Exam (UBE) score under Gov.Bar R. I(11). The case centers on allegations by Dempsey’s former Oregon employers that she abandoned her clients and employment, falsified or altered documents, and was dishonest—coupled with the Board’s finding that Dempsey lacked candor during Ohio’s admissions process.

The court reaffirmed core principles of Ohio’s admissions jurisprudence: an applicant bears the burden of proving present character and fitness by clear and convincing evidence; “shading the truth” in admissions proceedings counts as a false statement; and even a single act of dishonesty can disqualify an applicant. Balancing those principles against mitigating evidence related to domestic violence, the court denied admission but permitted reapplication after July 1, 2026.

This opinion provides important guidance for UBE-transfer applicants and bar candidates generally: good standing elsewhere does not substitute for Ohio’s independent character-and-fitness assessment, and candor—down to precise, consistent answers across interviews and forms—is non-negotiable.

Summary of the Opinion

• The applicant, licensed in Oregon, sought Ohio admission by transferred UBE score. During the Ohio process, her Oregon employers reported serious concerns: an eight-day disappearance and immediate resignation, client neglect, alleged post-signature document changes, and apparent signature additions on a draft judgment.
• At the character-and-fitness hearing, Dempsey acknowledged walking out on her job and clients but denied altering or forging documents and disputed that trials were scheduled the following week. She attributed conduct and communication failures to trauma from domestic violence, for which she later sought counseling.
• The Board found her testimony inconsistent and uncorroborated, noted her implication that interviewers and former employers were lying, and flagged a direct conflict between her hearing testimony (denying an Illinois bar application) and records showing she had filed one.
• Applying Gov.Bar R. I(13)’s standards, and citing In re Application of Howard (2006-Ohio-5486) and In re Application of Kohler (2007-Ohio-4261), the court held that Dempsey failed to prove present character and fitness by clear and convincing evidence.
• The court disapproved the application but allowed reapplication after July 1, 2026, recognizing steps toward rehabilitation (divorce, return to Ohio, counseling).

Detailed Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

• Gov.Bar R. I(11): Governs admission by transferred UBE score. The rule brings UBE-transfer candidates under the same character-and-fitness standards as all other applicants. The court emphasized that an applicant’s “record of conduct” must justify trust.
• Gov.Bar R. I(13)(D)(1), (D)(3): Places the burden on the applicant to prove by clear and convincing evidence their present character, fitness, and moral qualifications; requires that the applicant’s record support trust by courts, clients, and adversaries; and lists relevant factors (including false statements, omissions, acts of dishonesty, neglect of professional obligations).
• Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3): A “significant deficiency” in honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, or reliability can justify disapproval.
• Essential Eligibility Requirements (Nos. 2–4, 7, 10): Communication, judgment, honesty and integrity, diligence and reliability, and professional conduct that engenders respect—published by the Supreme Court of Ohio and incorporated by reference.
• In re Application of Howard, 2006-Ohio-5486: Avoiding or “shading” the truth during character-and-fitness proceedings counts as a false statement. This principle was central to the court’s assessment of Dempsey’s inconsistent accounts.
• In re Application of Kohler, 2007-Ohio-4261: A single false statement or act of dishonesty can disqualify an applicant. While the court did not hinge its decision solely on one statement, Kohler reinforced that even isolated dishonesty is disqualifying.

Legal Reasoning

1) The burden runs to the applicant, and credibility matters

Under Gov.Bar R. I(13)(D)(1), the applicant bears the burden to prove present character and fitness by clear and convincing evidence. Dempsey’s denial of the Oregon employers’ allegations rested almost entirely on her own testimony, which the panel did not fully credit. The Board highlighted contradictions: her statement during the Ohio process that she never applied in Illinois contradicted documentary information from the Illinois Board of Admissions and her own Ohio application. That direct conflict—and her tendency to portray others (interviewers, former employers) as liars—undermined her credibility.

Because clear and convincing evidence requires more than self-serving assertions, the absence of corroborating proof (for example, client communications, docket records, metadata or logs concerning electronic documents) proved fatal. The court expressly noted that the panel did not find all of her testimony credible and that she offered no evidence beyond her own statements to rebut the employers’ accounts.

2) Candor obligations apply everywhere in the process

The court reaffirmed Howard: “Avoiding or shading the truth” in admissions proceedings constitutes a false statement. This did not require a finding that Dempsey forged documents; rather, the focus was on her candor in the admissions process itself—interviews, forms, and testimony. Her explanation that she “didn’t know how to forge” a signature because the firm was “100 percent electronic” via Adobe became problematic when she failed to clarify it in the interview and later suggested the interviewers were untruthful about their questioning. The court’s message is clear: equivocation, half-answers, and later “clarifications” that conflict with prior statements can amount to a lack of candor.

3) Abandonment of clients goes to core eligibility requirements

The Board found Dempsey abandoned her employment and clients for eight days, failed to communicate with colleagues, and then resigned without facilitating client transitions. Even apart from the contested alteration/forgery allegations, the abandonment itself strikes at multiple essential eligibility requirements—communication, diligence, reliability, and judgment. The Board also faulted her for not fully grasping the potential harm to clients from her absence. The court agreed that this record fell short of the standard that an applicant’s conduct “justifies the trust of clients, adversaries, courts, and others.”

4) Mitigation and rehabilitation versus present fitness

The court acknowledged domestic violence, trauma, and subsequent counseling as important context and commendable steps toward rehabilitation. But present fitness must be proven now; mitigation does not replace proof. The remedy the court chose—disapproval with a firm reapplication date—recognizes the possibility of rehabilitation while maintaining the integrity of admissions standards.

5) UBE-transfer status and out-of-state licensure are not determinative

Dempsey’s good standing in Oregon did not carry the day. The court reiterated that Ohio conducts its own independent character-and-fitness assessment, regardless of UBE transfer or licensure elsewhere. The NCBE’s multi-jurisdictional background gathering (including Illinois’s report of her application) played an important role, and inconsistent representations across jurisdictions will be detected and weighed.

Impact and Forward-Looking Implications

• Bar admissions candor standard reinforced: The decision fortifies the principle that incomplete, equivocating, or contradictory statements in interviews and on forms can independently justify disapproval—even without a finding on underlying contested misconduct.
• Documentation and corroboration matter: Where an applicant denies detailed allegations by former employers, credible documentary rebuttal is critical. The absence of corroboration likely undercuts the “clear and convincing” standard.
• Good standing elsewhere is insufficient: Ohio will not “import” fitness determinations. UBE-transfer applicants should expect the same rigorous character review as first-time Ohio takers.
• Digital practice and document integrity: Allegations tied to electronic documents (e.g., Adobe-based signatures) are squarely within character-and-fitness inquiry. Applicants should preserve and be prepared to produce metadata, audit trails, and communications to address disputes about alterations or signatures.
• Trauma as mitigation, not immunity: The court’s calibrated remedy—disapproval with a defined reapplication date—signals empathy for trauma while affirming that client protection and candor remain paramount. Sustained rehabilitation evidence will be necessary on reapplication.
• Character references must be meaningful: Two references who offered “unknown” on honesty and trustworthiness weighed against the applicant. References should be selected for their ability to attest to the applicant’s core professional traits.
• Admissions-committee process affirmed: The opinion validates the local interview process, the Board’s credibility assessments, and the Supreme Court’s deference to those findings when supported by the record.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Clear and convincing evidence: A high standard of proof—stronger than “more likely than not” but not as strict as “beyond a reasonable doubt.” In admissions, the applicant must convincingly show their current suitability.
• Character and fitness: A holistic assessment of honesty, integrity, judgment, diligence, reliability, and professionalism. It asks whether the applicant’s record justifies the trust of courts, clients, and the public.
• “Shading the truth” equals a false statement: Not only outright lies, but also evasions, half-truths, or strategically incomplete answers during the admissions process count as false statements.
• Single false statement rule: Even one act of dishonesty can warrant denial of admission. The bar’s ethical baseline is stringent because lawyers’ duties require unwavering trustworthiness.
• Essential Eligibility Requirements: Ohio’s published criteria (including communication, judgment, honesty, diligence, and professionalism) guide admissions decisions. An applicant must meet them now, not merely aspire to meet them later.
• Reapplication after denial: Disapproval is not always permanent. A date-certain reapplication permission signals that the court expects sustained rehabilitation, corroborated by evidence (treatment, supervision, exemplary work, robust references).

Practical Takeaways for Applicants

• Be meticulously consistent across all jurisdictions and forms. Expect that the NCBE and state authorities will cross-check representations.
• If allegations arise, assemble evidence: client communications, calendars, docket entries, document logs/metadata, and third-party attestations.
• Choose references who can speak to your honesty, diligence, reliability, and professionalism based on direct experience.
• If trauma or health issues affected your conduct, document treatment, demonstrate insight into the harm caused, and show concrete, sustained changes.
• In interviews, answer precisely. If a question is ambiguous, ask for clarification. Avoid statements that can be misconstrued and correct the record promptly and fully if needed.

Conclusion

In re Application of Dempsey reinforces bedrock admissions principles in Ohio: the applicant bears a heavy burden to demonstrate present fitness; candor is absolute; and even one act of dishonesty—or evasiveness tantamount to a false statement—can ground disapproval. While the court showed measured compassion for the applicant’s personal circumstances by allowing reapplication after July 1, 2026, it squarely prioritized the protection of clients and the integrity of the profession.

For future candidates, the opinion underscores that the path to admission runs through transparent, corroborated, and consistent disclosures. For the bar and the public, it renews confidence that Ohio’s admissions process will insist on honesty, reliability, and mature professional judgment—essential qualities that cannot be compromised at the gateway to practice.