314 Ga. 427
FINAL COPY
S22Z0316. IN THE MATTER OF GEGE OKEZUANDUE ODION.
PER CURIAM.
Dr. Gege Okezuandue Odion, an optometrist, is a law school
graduate who applied to the Board to Determine Fitness of Bar
Applicants (the “Board”) for certification of fitness to practice law.
The Board considered Odion’s application; found that it
demonstrated a lack of “candor, judgment, integrity, diligence, [and]
trustworthiness” required of a prospective member of the State Bar
of Georgia; and denied the application. The central issue giving rise
to the Board’s denial arises out of Odion’s response to the application
requirement regarding disclosure of court proceedings filed by an
applicant or in which an applicant is a party. Because the record
supports the Board’s decision, we affirm.
1. The record shows that Odion applied to take the July 2005
Bar exam. He submitted an incomplete fitness application in
November 2004 and did not move forward with fitness certification
or sit for the July 2005 Bar exam.
Odion filed a second fitness application on August 23, 2018. On
November 13, 2020, the Board served Odion with a tentative order
denying the application, noting a number of reasons for the tentative
denial, including “a deficiency in the level of judgment and candor
required of all members of the Bar of Georgia, specifically with
regard to the number of lawsuits you filed and failed to disclose on
your Character and Fitness Application.” Following Odion’s request
for a hearing, the Board provided Odion with a list of specifications
for the denial of his application, including details regarding a
number of lawsuits Odion had failed to disclose. Odion timely
answered the specifications by letter.
This Court appointed a Special Master who presided over a
hearing regarding this matter on September 30, 2021. Both Odion
and the Board presented evidence at the hearing. Following the
hearing, the Special Master made findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and recommendations.
— 2 —
Among those findings, each of which is supported by the record,
the Special Master determined that, in his initial 2005 fitness
application, Odion indicated that he had been involved in three
litigation matters. Odion filed a second application on August 23,
2018, which he amended multiple times (the last amendment was
filed on August 9, 2021). The 2018 application initially listed six
lawsuits that Odion had filed pro se. In response to the specifications
noted by the Board following its tentative denial of the application,
Odion submitted a letter listing 22 additional litigation matters in
which he had been involved. Odion later filed a supplement to his
response to the Board’s specifications, which listed one additional
lawsuit.
The Special Master determined that, despite the Board’s
specifications and Odion’s two responses to them, Odion failed to
disclose 20 additional litigation matters in any application,
amendment, or supplement. The Special Master also determined
that Odion had offered varying and “inconsistent” explanations for
his failure to list all litigation matters to which he had been a party
— 3 —
and noted that Odion “has never unequivocally admitted the
incompleteness of his application nor taken responsibility for its
omissions.”1 In light of its findings, the Special Master concluded
that “Odion has not met his burden to show that he has the requisite
character and fitness to become a member of the Georgia Bar” and
recommended that the Board deny Odion’s application for a
certificate of fitness. The Board later adopted the Special Master’s
findings and recommendation and denied Odion’s application. Odion
appeals.
2. This Court has a responsibility to the public “to see that
1 Specifically, Odion argued that he was under the impression that, under Rule 6 (b) of the Rules Governing Admission to the Practice of Law, he needed to disclose only those litigation matters that occurred within the five years preceding his application. But that rule, which instructs the Board to contact and request information from the Chief Judge of the superior courts of each judicial circuit where an applicant has resided, attended school, or been employed during the five years preceding the application, clearly places no limitation on an applicant’s duty to disclose litigation matters to which he has been a party. Moreover, as the Special Master noted, Odion made this argument for the first time during the hearing. Odion also argued to the Special Master that he had been involved in only a few “main” lawsuits and that the undisclosed litigation matters were related to those “main” cases. But this contention is not supported by the record. And in the supplement to his response to the Board’s specifications, in which he disclosed an additional lawsuit he filed against a delicatessen chain, Odion explained that he “did not remember” that lawsuit because it had not progressed past discovery.
— 4 —
those who are admitted to practice are ethically cognizant and
mature individuals who have the character to withstand the
temptations which are placed before them as they handle other
people’s money and affairs.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) In
re Cason, 249 Ga. 806, 809 ( 294 SE2d 520 ) (1982). The function of
the Board “is to prevent those not demonstrating the requisite moral
character and fitness from being allowed to become lawyers.” Id.
As this Court has long held, “[t]hroughout the application
process, the burden rests upon the applicant to establish his or her
fitness to practice law.” In the Matter of Lee, 275 Ga. 763, 764 ( 571 SE2d 720 ) (2002). “False, misleading[,] or evasive answers to bar
application questionnaires may be grounds for a finding of lack of
requisite character and fitness.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.)
In the Matter of Payne, 289 Ga. 746, 748 ( 715 SE2d 139 ) (2011).
“Generally, if there is any evidence to support the Board’s decision
regarding the fitness of a Bar applicant, it will be upheld.” (Citation
and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 746-747 . However, “[t]he decision
whether, in light of the facts, an applicant is fit to practice law in
— 5 —
Georgia rests ultimately with this Court.” In the Matter of White,
283 Ga. 74, 75 ( 656 SE2d 527 ) (2008).
Here, the record supports the Special Master’s findings and
recommendation, which were adopted by the Board and formed the
basis of its denial of Odion’s fitness application. Odion repeatedly
failed to disclose numerous litigation matters to which he was a
party, even after the Board gave him an opportunity to respond to
the specifications for tentative denial and supplement his
application. The Board was also authorized to determine that
Odion’s proffered justifications for his lack of disclosure were
inadequate or misleading. Such behavior on the part of a Bar
applicant, especially in light of the Board’s efforts to allow Odion to
amend and supplement his application on multiple occasions,
“shows a complete lack of diligence and judgment, which goes to his
fitness, and, at worst, a lack of candor, which goes to his character.”
Payne, 289 Ga. at 749 . See also In the Matter of Huddleston, 297 Ga. 726, 731 ( 777 SE2d 438 ) (2015) (affirming denial of fitness
application where applicant “consistently chose to conceal, rather
— 6 —
than disclose” requested information and “even when directly
confronted about his lack of candor on numerous occasions, . . . still
chose to omit relevant portions of his record that should have been
revealed from the beginning”). Accordingly, the Board properly
denied Odion’s application for certification of fitness to practice law,
and we affirm that decision.2
Denial of certification affirmed. All the Justices concur.
2 We also note that Odion spent much of his briefing before this Court
attempting to explain the circumstances surrounding litigation matters to which he was a party while devoting scant attention to explaining why he failed to fully and promptly disclose all lawsuits in which he had been involved — the key issue in the Board’s denial of his application and this appeal. Odion also devoted considerable portions of his briefs arguing that a current staff member of the Office of Bar Admissions had, in various ways, exhibited bias and prejudice against him and “retaliated” against him during the review of his application. We see nothing in the record to support these statements, and we take note that such unsubstantiated allegations, coupled with Odion’s own repeated failures to take responsibility for the completeness and accuracy of his application, further demonstrate Odion’s lack of fitness to practice law.
— 7 —
Decided August 9, 2022.
Certification of fitness to practice law.
John A. Earles, Rebecca S. Mick, for Office of Bar Admissions.
Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Bryan K. Webb, Deputy
Attorney General, Russell D. Willard, Senior Assistant Attorney
General, Jennifer Colangelo, Assistant Attorney General, for Board
to Determine Fitness of Bar Applicants.
— 8 —
Loading…