BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

In Re: Application ofGeoffrey Mitchell

Board Case No. 08-521Case No. 376

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

Charles J. Kettlewell (0072448)Kenneth R. Donchatz (0062221)Christensen, Christensen, Donchatz,Kefflewell & Owens LLP100 E. Campus View Blvd., Suite 360Columbus, Ohio 43235P: (614) 436-2750F: (614) 436-2865clcettlewell rnicolumbuslaw.orakdonchatz(a^colunibustaw.org

Counsel for Applicant,Geoffrey Mitchell

Eric Johnson, Esq.Sowald, Sowald & Clouse400 South Fifth Street, Suite 101Columbus, Ohio 43215-5430P: (614) 464-1877F: (614) 464-2035ei oluison@sowaldlaw. coin

Martha J. Sweterlitsch, Esq.Benesch, Friedlander Coplan & Arnoff88 East Broad Street, Suit 900Columbus, Ohio 43215-3506P: (614) 223-9300F: (614) 223-9330msweterlitsch!tt^bfaa.com

Counsel for Columbus Bar Association

1

CLERK Ar COURTSUPREM.E CQURTQF OHIO

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

Now comes Applicant, Geoffrey C. Mitchell, by and through Counsel, and hereby requests

this Honorable Court's Clarification with regards to its July 3, 2008 decision in Applicant's case,

wherein the Court stated, "The applicant may apply to take the February 2009 bar examination,

providing he first completes a legal ethics and professionalism course at an ABA-accredited

law school. (Emphasis added.) (Ex. A)

The Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness' ("Board") issued a March 13, 2008

recommendation that Dr. Mitchell be disapproved to sit for the July 2008 bar exam, but "that he be

permitted to reapply to take the February 2009 bar examination provided that he successfully

complete a course involving legal ethics and professionalism." (Ex. B)

Before this Honorable Court rendered its decision, Dr. Mitchell attempted to register to take

the regular ethics and professionalism course at the Ohio State University, Moritz College of Law.

("Moritz Law") On April 9, 2008 Counsel for Applicant and Counsel for the Columbus Bar

Association filed a Joint Notice of Waiver, with both parties requesting the Court adopt the Board's

findings of fact, conclusions, and recommendations. (Ex. C)

On or about May 14, 2008, Dr. Mitchell contacted Moritz Law's Assistant Registrar, Jane

Logan, to inquire about enrolling in Moritz Law's ethics and professionalism course per the Board's

recommendation. It took six weeks to successfully register. Attempting to comply in every way, on

May 28, 2008, Dr. Mitchell advised the registrar's office, "I must assume I need to take the test and

receive a grade." Dr. Mitchell was advised that the Moritz. Law did not have a mechanism for him

to take the exam and receive a grade. It took a month, until June 27, 2008 until Dr. Mitchell was

fmally accepted to take the class. In the June 27 email, Dr. Mitchell was again advised that he would

be auditing the course and that the professor advised that he did not need to take an exam. (Ex. D)

On July 3, 2008 this Honorable Court issued its decision in Dr. Mitchell's case adopting the

Board's recommendation and adding the requirement that the ethics and professionalism course be

completed at an ABA accredited law school.

On August 19, 2008, Dr. Mitchell began auditing the Supreme Court of Ohio Disciplinary

Counsel, Professor Jonathan Coughlan's, ethics and professionalism course at the Ohio State

University Moritz College of Law, an ABA accredited law school. Pursuant to the Court's

decision, Dr. Mitchell has reapplied for the February 2009 bar examination, and will have

completed auditing Professor Coughlan's course on November 25, 2008. Dr. Mitchell will obtain

documentation from Professor Coughlan attesting to same and will supplement same to his

application.

However, counsel for Applicant has recently been advised that the full Board of

Commissioners on Character and Fitness will have to consider the question of whether Dr. Mitchell

auditing Professor Coughlan's course will be sufficient to satisfy the requirement that he, "he first

completes a legal ethics and professionalism course at an ABA-accredited law school.

(Emphasis added.) The full Board does not meet until February 6, 2009. Recently Professor

Cougnlan reiterated the problem with the Moritz Law policy stating, "we can not submit [an exam]

through the normal process since you are not an OSU student." (Ex. E)

As such, Applicant finds himself in what appears to be an unforeseen catch 22 with two

unintended consequences from this Honorable Court's July 3, 2008 decision: First, Applicant has

no means to force any ABA accredited law school to permit him to enroll as a regular student, and

as such may never be able to meet the requirement of this Honorable Court's decision, if

"completes" does not include Applicant auditing an ethics and professionalism course; Second,

even assuming arguendo that Applicant can somehow find an ABA accredited law school that will

allow him to enroll as a regular law student in order to complete the course (if that is the Board's

decision) Applicant will not know of the Board's decision until after the Board's February 6, 2009

meeting. By this time it would be too late for Applicant to enroll in a Winter/Spring 2009 ABA

accredited law school ethics and professionalism course, which would have a net result of

effectively prohibiting Applicant from not only taking the February 2009 bar examination, but also

the July 2009 bar examination as well. This does not appear to have been either the Board's or this

Honorable Court's intent in making their respective recommendations and decision in Dr.

Mitchell's case.

As such, Applicant respectfully requests this Honorable Court's clarification as to the

definition of "completes a legal ethics and professionalism course at an ABA-accredited law

school" to answer whether Applicant's auditing of Professor Coughlan's ethics and professionalism

course satisfies this Honorable Court's requirement in its decision?

Respectfully submitted,

ByCharles 1Cettlewell(0072448)Kenneth R. Donchatz (0062221)Christensen, Christensen, Donchatz,Kettlewell & Owens LLP100 East Campus View Blvd., Suite 360Columbus, OH 43235Phone: (614) 436-2750Fax: (614) 436-2865ekettlewell@columbuslaw.orgkdoilchatz@columbuslaw.org

Counsel for ApplicantDr. Geoffrey C. Mitchell

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion for Clarification has been mailed by

regular U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this-z '1pday of October, 2008, to the following:

Eric Johnson, Esq.Sowald, Sowald & Clouse400 South Fifth Street, Suite 101Columbus, Ohio 43215-5430

Counsel for the Columbus Bar Association

Martha J. Sweterlitsch, Esq.Benesch, Friedlander Coplan & Arnoff88 East Broad Street, Suit 900Columbus, Ohio 43215-3506

Counsel for the Columbus Bar Association

http://hvww.Iawri ter.net/cgi-bi n/texis/wcb/caselaw/+Bfe77S xez...

119 Ohio St.3d 39; In re Application of Mitchell;

IN RE APPLICATION OF MITCHELL

[Cite as In re Application of Mitchell, 119 Ohio St.3d 39, 2008-Ohio-3236]

2008-Ohio-3236

Attorneys - Character and fitness - Applicant lodged questionable accusations and legal claims while

appearing pro se in litigation - Applicant may apply to take the February 2009 bar examination.

(No. 2008-0521 - Submitted May 6, 2008 - Decided July 3, 2008.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness of the Supreme

Court, No. 376.

Per Curiam.

{g 1} The applicant, Geoffrey Christopher Mitchell, M.D., of Columbus, Ohio, is a candidate foradmission to the Ohio bar and has applied to take the Ohio bar examination. The Board ofCommissioners on Character and Fitness recommends that we disapprove, for now, his application totake the bar exam, based on findings that he lodged questionable accusations and legal claims aftersuing for his discharge from practice in a hospital emergency room. We accept the board'srecommendation to disapprove but also allow the applicant to apply to take the February 2009 barexamination, providing he first completes a legal ethics and professionalism course at a law schoolaccredited by the American Bar Association ("ABA").

Page 39

1of5

{9 2} The applicant is a physician who entered Capital University Law School in 2003 after a longcareer in medicine. The applicant registered as a candidate for admission to the Ohio bar, and in 2005,the Columbus Bar Association's admissions comtnittee provisionally approved his character, fitness,and moral qualifications in accordance with Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3) and (4). Upon graduation, theapplicant applied for the bar exam that was to be administered in July 2007.

{T 3} Before the applicant could qualify to sit for the exam, he had to obtain the admissionscommittee's final approval pursuant to Gov.Bar R. I(3)(C), including a favorable review of hissupplemental character questionnaire and related materials. During this process, a lawyer complainedto the committee, alleging that the applicant had lodged false claims against him, his associates, andhis clients - a physicians' group under contract to provide hospital emergency room services, andothers - after the clients successfully defended against his tort claims. Following an investigation ofthese allegations, the admissions committee expressed misgivings about the applicant's judgment byrecommending disapproval of his bar application.

{9 4} The applicant appealed the admission committee's recommendation, and a three-memberpanel of the board heard the case in January 2008. See Gov.Bar R. I(12)(C). Finding that the applicanthad "embarked on a course of unprofessional and illogical conduct" following the loss of his tort

EXHIBIT

a /t10/27/08 10:39 AM

http://www.l awriter.net/cgi-bitVtexi s/web/caselaw/+Bfe77SXez...

claims by pursuing "repeated, unwarranted attacks" against opposing counsel and others, the panelconcluded that the applicant at that time lacked the qualifications to practice law in this state. Becausethe applicant had "begun to understand that he cannot make serious allegations of misconduct againstopposing counsel and parties without evidence to support the allegations," however, the panelrecommended that the applicant be permitted to apply for the bar February 2009 bar exam withfurther ethics instruction. The board adopted the panel's findings and recommendation.

(551 Since the board filed its report, the parties have waived any objections and jointly asked thatwe adopt the board's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation.

1. The Panel and Board Decisions

A. The Underlying Dispute

{5 6} The applicant formerly practiced as an attending physician at Riverside Hospital inColumbus, most recently in affiliation with Mid-Ohio Emergency Services, L.L.C. ("MOES"), andbefore that in affiliation with Olentangy Emergency Physicians. MOES is the physicians' group thatbecame responsible in September 1998 for the hospital's emergency room services under the oversight

Page 40

of MedPartners, a large physician-management company. MOES took over at Riverside afterRiverside and Grant Medical Center merged and became part of Ohio Health.

f9 7} The applicant opposed Ohio Health's decision to have MedPartners oversee emergency roomservices at Riverside. During negotiations between Ohio Health and MedPartners, the applicantcirculated a memo suggesting that the partnership would not be in the best interest of the emergencyroom physicians. Ohio Health and MedPartners ultimately finalized a deal, however, and the applicantcontinued to work in the emergency room, albeit then as a MOES employee. The relationship did not

last long.

{g 8} On November 20, 1998, MOES dismissed the applicant for purportedly having disclosedconfidential patient information in violation of the hospital's quality-control policies. The applicantviewed his discharge as unjust and as the result of a complaint he had lodged about the poor care thathe perceived one emergency room patient had received. In 1999, the applicant sued MOES,Grant/Riverside, and others for his termination, arguing in the main that defendants had violatedpublic policy by terminating his employment for raising legitimate concerns about patient care.

B. The MOES Litigation

{9 9} In the preliminary stages of the applicant's suit, the Franklin County Court of Common Pleasgranted summary judgment in the defendants' favor. In 2004, the Tenth District Court of Appealsaffirmed. After the loss on appeal, the applicant's counsel withdrew from the case.

{510} By the time of the court of appeals' decision, the applicant was in his second year of lawschool. With the departure of his lawyer, the applicant decided to proceed pro se in the MOESlitigation. He moved this court to grant discretionary review of his appeal, which we denied. He then

2 of 5 10/27/08 10:39 AM

http://www.laivdter.netlcgi-bin/texis/web/caselaw/+Bfc77Sxez...

filed a motion under Civ.R. 60(B) asking the trial court to vacate the order granting summaryjudgment. The motion was overruled. The applicant then began filing motions and discovery requestsanew, evidently in response to defendants' motions for sanctions, including asking for leave to fileanother motion to vacate. The motions for sanctions and to vacate remained pending as of the panelhearing.

C. The Cause for the Panel and Board Concerns

{q 11} The applicant engaged in the conduct that implicated his fitness to practice law whilerepresenting himself. He lodged questionable if not baseless claims of impropriety against opposingcounsel in the MOES litigation. He also attempted to show a conspiracy by making an untenableconnection between his

Page 41

claims against MOES and the wrongdoing of a former MedPartners chairman who had been indicted

on federal charges of bribery.

{g 12} In adopting the panel's report, the board described the applicant's lapses in judgment

relative to opposing counsel:

{T 13} "On repeated occasions in court filings and in correspondence, the Applicant accusedopposing counsel of engaging in fraud and other unethical conduct. The Applicant is of the belief thatcertain information was not disclosed in response to interrogatories and deposition questions hiscounsel propounded during the MOES Litigation. After reviewing the matters, the Panel cannotconclude that information was intentionally concealed or withheld from the Applicant and hiscounsel. At best, the defendants and their counsel did not provide certain information to vague andambiguous questions that the Applicant believes should have been provided. What is more troublingis the manner in which the Applicant chose to address his concerns. When the Applicant becameaware of certain information that he believed should have been provided in response to interrogatoriesand deposition questions, he could have simply contacted opposing counsel to resolve the issue.Instead, the Applicant repeatedly attacked opposing counsel in pleadings and letters sent to variousgovernmental agencies, including a grievance filed against one of the opposing attorneys as well as aletter to the Franklin County Prosecutor. Finally, the Applicant wrote a letter to the managing partnerof one of defense counsel's firms. In that letter, the Applicant accused the law firm of engaging infraudulent and illegal conduct. After reviewing the entire record presented in this matter, the Panelcan only conclude that the Applicant's accusations are without merit and the Applicant has displayedincredibly poor judgment in the manner in which he handled his concerns."

f9 14} As to the applicant's attempt to tie his discharge case to the ill-workings of the formerMedPartner chairman, the board observed:

{^ 15} "During the course of the MOES Litigation, MedPartners' Chairman, Richard Scrushy("Scrushy"), was indicted on a range of federal charges stemming from his efforts to bribe the(former) Governor of the State of Alabama. Apparently, Scrushy either paid or attempted to pay theGovernor of the State of Alabama to place Scrushy or his designee on a state board that dealt withmedical contracts and hospital licensing. The record in this case establishes that Scrushy was clearly a

3 of 5 10/27/08 10:39 AM

http://www.law riter.nct/cgi-bin/texis/web/casel aw/+Bfe77S xez...

bad actor who committed serious crimes. However, there is no evidence in the record whatsoever thatindicates that the wrongdoing of Scrushy and MedPartners extended to MedPartners' dealings withGrant/Riverside and the formation of MOES. Despite this lack of evidence, the Applicant has beensteadfast in his attempts to persuade the court in the MOES Litigation and nutnerous governmentalagencies that the merits of his case should be reconsid

Page 42

ered in light of the scandal involving Scrushy and MedPartners. The Applicant is convinced that thehiring of [a consultant formerly associated with MedPartners] to negotiate on behalf of Ohio Healthwhile [the consultant] was still receiving compensation from MedPartners amounts to fraud which hehas referred to as either a bribe or a kickback. The Applicant's contentions are not supported by anyevidence and he does not appear to understand that his mere belief, even if it is genuine, is notsufficient to support his allegations of fraud in the MOES Litigation."

II. Disposition

f9 16} An applicant to the Ohio bar must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he or she"possesses the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to the practice oflaw." Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(1). The applicant's record must justify "the trust of clients, adversaries,courts, and others with respect to the professional duties owed to them." Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3).Necessarily, "[a] record manifesting a significant deficiency in the honesty, trustworthiness, diligence,or reliability of an applicant may constitute a basis for disapproval of the applicant." Id.

{f1 17} An applicant's tendency to abuse the legal process is one of the factors upon which we mayrely in disapproving his or her qualifications for taking the bar examination. Gov.Bar R. I(11)(D)(3)(j). For this reason, an applicant's dubious judgment in repeatedly filing unwarranted legal claims,among other much more egregious failings, has resulted in our disapproving his application to takethe bar. In re Application of Keita (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 46, 47, 656 N.E.2d 620. (Applicant's litigiousconduct, combined with his significant criminal record, apparently serious and untreatedpsychological problems, and lack of candor about his past precluded him from ever reapplying for thebar examination). But this applicant's case is not at all as serious as In re Application of Keita - apart

from his actions in the MOES litigation, this applicant's credentials and conduct are without reproach.

f9 18} Even so, the applicant's unwarranted attacks against opposing counsel and repeated andunfounded contentions in the MOES litigation revealed a singular lack of the good judgmentnecessary to practice of law. To his credit, however, the applicant seemed to acknowledge this failingat the panel hearing, and we take his decision not to object to and, in fact, accept the board's report asfurther evidence of his insight. We thus consider the applicant an acceptable risk for reapplication.

{q 19} We accept the board's recommendation to disapprove. The applicant may apply to take theFebruary 2009 bar examination, providing he first

Page 43

completes a legal ethics and professionalism course at an ABA-accredited law school.

4 of 5 10/27/08 10:39 AM

http://rvww.lawri ter.net/cgi -bi n/texishveb/caselaw/+Bfe77Sxez...

Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, CJ., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O'CONNOR, O'DONNELL,LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur.

Christensen, Christensen, Doncliatz, Kettlewell & Owens, L.L.P., Charles

J. Kettlewell, and Kenneth R. Donchatz, for applicant.

Sowald, Sowald & Clouse, and Eric Johnson; and Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff andMartha J. Sweterlitsch, for the Columbus Bar Association.

OH

Ohio St.3d

Lawriter Corporation. All rights reserved.

The Casemaker Online database is a compilation exclusively owned by Lawriter Corporation. The database isprovided for use under the terms, notices and conditions as expressly stated under the online end user licenseagreement to which all users assent in order to access the database.

5 of 5 10/27/08 10:39 AM

^4.r oaxvrrtxtt$ ^Onrt of 04i,aBEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

ON CHARACTER AND FITNESS OF

THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

08--0In re: Application of Case No. 376Geoffrey Christopher Mitchell

FINDINGS OF FACT ANDRECOMMENDATION OF'I'HE BOARD OFCOMMISSIONERS ON CHARACTER ANDFITNESS OF THE SUPREME COURT OFOHIO

`1'his matter is before the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness pursuant to theappeal filed by the applicant, Geoffrey Christopher Mitchell, in accordance with Gov. Bar R. I, Sec.12(B).

A duly appointed panel of three Commissioners on Character and Fitness was impaneled forthe purpose of hearing testimony and receiving evidence in this matter. The panel filed its reportwith the board on February 7, 2008.

Pursuant to Gov. Bar R. I, Sec. 12(D), the board considered this matter on February 8, 2008.The board adopts the panel report as attached, including its findings of fact and recommendation,with the clarification that the applicant be required to succ:essfully complete a course on legal ethicsand professionalism at an ABA-approved law school. The panel report is attached hereto and made apart of the board's report

Therefore, the Board of Conunissioners on Character and Fitness recommends that theapplicant, Geoffrey Christopher Mitchell, be disapproved, and that he be permitted to reapply to takethe February 2009 Ohio bar examination upon completion of a legal ethics and professionalismcourse at an ABA-approved law school.

F-, d "L Tc ^v f 7!^ z1 !i

CLERK OFCOkiRTSUPREME CCIIiR"i a OHIU,

SUZANNE K. RICiARDS, Chair, Board ofCommissioners on Character and Fitness for theSupreme Court of Ohio

E EXHIBIT

^

BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSON CHARACTER AND FITNESS OFTHE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

IN RE:

APPLTCATION OFGEOFFREY CHRISTOPHERMI'I'CHELL

CASE NO. 376

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONOF PANEL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This matter is before Board pursuant to an appeal by the Applicant dated August 1, 2007.

The Columbus Bar Association submitted a report recommending that the Applicant's

Application for Admission be disapproved.

On August 21, 2007, the Supreme Court of Ohio appointed a Panel consisting, of Todd C.

Hicks as Chairperson, John Fairweather, and Adolfo A. Torniehio. A hearing was conducted on

January 28, 2008 at the Suprerne Court of Ohio. 'The Applicant was represented by Charles J.

Kettlewell and Kenneth R. Donchatz. The Columbus Bar Association was represented by Eric

Johnson and Martha J. Sweterlitsch,

BACKGROIIND

'I'he Applicant is fifty-four years old. He is a medical doctor. The great majority of his

medical career has been spent as an emergency room physician at various hospitals in the

Columbus area. With the exception of the litigation described below, there are no concerns about

the Applicant's character, fitness and moral qualifications to practice law in the State of Ohio.

The evidence at the hearing established that the Applicant was well respeated as a physician and

as a member of the community. However, as noted below, his conduct during the litigation raises

serious concerns about his present character and fitness.

In 1997, the Applicant was a senior attending physician at Riverside Methodist Hospital

("RMH") in Columbus, Around that time, RMH was acquired by a non-profit entity known as

Ohio Health. Ohio Health also owned another Columbus area hospital known as Grant Medical

Center. Prior to Ohio Health taking over the two hospitals, each hospital had separate physician

groups staffmg their respective emergency rooms. It was the desire of Ohio Health to have a

single physician practice group or entity that would staff the emergency rooms of both hospitals.

To that end, Ohio Health began negotiations with a company known as MedPartners.

MedPartners is a large, nationwide physician practice management company.

Ohio Health wanted an arrangement whereby MedPartners would manage a new practice

group that would essentialty be a merger of the emergency department practice groups at Grant

and Riverside. In other words, Ohio Health wanted the two physician groups to merge and be

managed by MedPartners or some new entity in which MedPartners held a stake.

In an effort to accomplish this goal, Ohio Health hired an individual named Clifford

Findeiss, M.D. ("Findeiss"). Findeiss had been an executive at a company called InPhyNet

Medical Management, Inc. ("InPhyNet"). In 1997, InPhyNet was purchased by MedPartners. In

connection with the closing of that purchase, MedPartners entered into a Consulting and Non-

Competition Agreement with Findeiss. '1'hat Agreement required significant payments to

Findeiss over the course of a one year period. Not only did Ohio Health laave knowtedge of

Findeiss's prior relationship with MedPartners, it hired him specifically because of his

connections and experience both with MedPartners and generally with contracts for the staffing

of emergency roonvs by physicians. Ohio Health paid Findeiss compensation for the services he

rendered. Ultiunately, MedPartners, and the two physician groups agreed on a business

arrangement which resulted in the formation of an entity known as Mid-Ohio Emergency

Services, LLC ("MOES").

The Applicant was resistant to MedPartners becoming involved with the ernergency

department at Riverside. To that end, the Applicant circulated a memo to Riverside's eniergency

department medical staff in 1998. That merno contained a Wall Street Journal article dated

March 19, 1998 detailing significant financial losses suffered by MedPartners and questioning its

future. In the memo, the Applicant suggested that partr ering with MedPartners would not be in

the best interest of the Riverside emergency department pliysicians. Despite Applicant's

concerns, the physicians did proceed to form MOES in June of 1998 and MOES took over the

staffing of the Riverside emergency department on September 1, 1998. The Applicant eontinued

to work as an ER physician at Riverside although he becanie an employee of MOBS.

-2-

. On November 20, 1998, the Applicant was fired by MOES. Accarding to MOES, the

Applicant was fired because he circulated confidential patient information outside of the Quality

Assurance chain established by Riverside. In summary, Applicant wrote a letter dated November

10, 1998 to G-rant/Riverside's Vice President of Medical Affairs, Dr. Richard Shonk. The letter

detailed the Applicant's concerns related to the quality of care given to a patient which the

Applicant felt was the result of gross overcrowding in the eniergency room at Riverside. 'I`he

Applicant copied at least two other doctors on that letter who were not part of the Quality

Assurance chain, although those doctors were involved in the treatment and care of the patient in

question. Riverside took the position that the Applicant had violated their rules and regulations

related to the Quality Assurance reporting process and his employment with MOES was

terminated as a result.

The Applicant filed a civil lawsuit in the Franklin County Comnton Pleas Court against

MOES and related entities and individuals as a result of his termination (the "MOES

Litigation"). The thnist of the Complaint and Amended Complaint filed was that MOES and the

other Defendants violated public policy by terminating Applicant's employment for raising

legitimate concerns about patient eare.

At the outset of the MOES Litigation, the Applicant was represented by Columbus

Attorney Mike Moore. 'The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.

The Applicant appealed that decision to the Tenth District Court of Appeals and the grant of

summary judginent was affirmed. At that point, the Applicant and Attorney Moore parted

company because the Applicant could no longer afford to pay for Attorney Moore's services.

During the course of the MOES Litigation, the Applicant enrolled in the evening program

at Capital University's Law School and he was in his second year by the time the Court of

Appeals issued its decision. The Applicant then elected to proceed pro se. He filed a Motion for

Discretionary Review by the Ohio Supreme Court which was denied. Thereafter, he filed two

motions under Civil Rule 60(B) seeking to set aside or vacate the trial court's grant of summary

judgment. Both of those motions were denied. LJnfortunately for the Applicant, the Defendants

filed motions for sanctions against him in connection with one or both of the motions for relief

from judgment. The Applicant then filed a motion for leave to file a motion to vacate the grant of

summary judgment. The motion for sanctions and the motion for leave retnain pending at this

time.

-3-

While proceeding pro se, the Applicant engaged in conduct that calls into question his

fitness to practice law in the State of Ohio. The conduct not only involved filings in the MOES

Litigation but also sending correspondence to various federal and state agencies raising the

issues he sought to raise in the MOBS Litigation after opting to proceed pro ,re. While the record

in this matter is voluminous, the issues of concern can be broken down into two general

categories.

The first category involves the Applicant's conduct toward opposing counsel in the

MOES Litigation. On repeated occasions in court filings and in correspondence, the Applicant

accused opposing counsel of engaging in fraud and other unethical conduct. The Applicant is of

the belief that certain information was not disalosed in response to interrogatories and deposition

questions his counsel propounded during the MOES Litigation. After reviewing the matters, the

Panel cannot conclude that information was intentionally concealed or withheld from the

Applicant and his co:unsel. At best, the defendants and their counsel did not provide certain

information to vague and ambiguous questions that the Applicant believes should have been

provided. What is more troubling is the manner in which the Applicant chose to address his

conoerns. When the Applicant became aware of certain information that he believed should have

been provided in response to interrogatories and deposition questions, he could have simply

contacted opposing counsel to resolve the issue. Instead, the Applicant repeatedly attacked

opposing couasel in pleadings and letters sent to various governmental agencies, including a

grievance filed against one of the opposing attorneys as well as a letter to the Franklin County

Prosecutor. Finally, the Applicant wrote a letter to the managing partner of one of defense

counsel's firms. In that letter, the Applicant accused the law firm of engaging in fraudulent and

illegal conduct. After reviewing the entire record presented in this matter, the Panel can only

conclude that the Applicant's accusations are without merit and the Applicant has displayed

incredibly poor judgment in the manner in which he handled his concerns.

The second area of concern relates to factual allegations the Applicant made in the

MOES Litigation once he elected to proceed pro se. Simply put, the Applicant changed the

factual basis for the claims he was asserting in the MOES Litigation. During the course of the

MOES Litigation, MedPartners' Chairman, Richard Scrushy ("Scrushy"), was indicted on a

range of federal charges stemming from his efforts to bribe the (former) Governor of the State of

Alabama. Apparently, Scrushy either paid or attempted to pay the Governor of the State of

-4-

Alabama to place Scrushy or his designee on a state board that dealt witb medical contracts and

hospital licensing. The record in this case establishes that Scrushy was clearly a bad actor who

committed serious crimes. However, there is no evidence in the record whatsoever that indiaates

that the wrongdoing of Scrnshy and MedPartners extended to MedPartners' dealings with

Grant/Riverside and the formation of MOES. Despite this lack of evidence, the Applicant has

been steadfast in his attempts to persuade the court in the MOES Litigation and numerous

governmental agencies that the merits of his case sbould be reconsidered in light of the scandal

involving Scrushy and MedPartners. The Applicant is convinced that the hiring of Findeiss to

negotiate on behalf of Ohio Health while he was still receiving compensation from MedPartners

amounts to fraud which he has referred to as either a bribe or a kickback. The Applicant's

contentions are not supported by any evidence and he does not appear to understand that his

mere belief, even if it is genuine, is not sufficient to support his allegations of fraud in the MOES

Litigation.

CONCLUSION ANI? I2ECOMMENDAT12ly

The Panel is deeply troubled by the Applicant's conduct in the MOES Litigation and his

related efforts to seek redress against opposing counsel and MedPartners. The Panel does not

believe that the MOES Litigation was frivolous from the outset. However, when the Applicant

elected to proceed pro se, he embarked on a course of unprofessionaT and illogical conduct. It is

the Panel's position that the repeated, unwarranted attacks against opposing counsel and the

repeated, unfounded contentions made in the MOES Litigation concerning Scrushy/MedPartners

demonstrate that the Applicant does not possess the present character, fitness, and moral

qualifications to practice law in the State of Ohio. It does appear that the Applicant has begun to

understand that he cannot make serious allegations of misconduct against opposing counsel and

parties without evidenee to support the allegations. However, the Panel is not convinced that the

Applicant has truly accepted that he cannot make unsupported allegations without evidence.

Based on the foregoing, the Panel recommends that the Applicant's Application be disapproved

and that he be peimitted to reapply to take the February 2009 bar examination provided that he

sticcessfully complete a course involving legal ethics and professionalism.

-5-

C(DIn Re: Application ofGeoffrey iViitehell

BEFORE THE SUPRFME COURT OF OIIIO

(ase No. 08-521

JOINT NOTICE OF WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS

Charles Kettlewell (0072448)Kenneth R Donchatz (0062221)Christensen, Christensen, Donchatz,Kettlewell & Owens LLP100 East Campus View Blvd., Suite 360Columbus, OH 43235Phone: (614) 436-2750Fax: (614) 436-2865ekettlewellu olumbc^slaw.orgkdonehatz{u)croliux^buslaw.ora

Counsel for ApplicantDr. Geoffrey C. Mitcliell

Martha J. Sweterlitsch, Esq. (0015157)$enesch, Friedlander Cqpian & Arnoff88 East Broad Street, Suit 900Columbus, Ohio 43215-3506(614) 223-9367msweterlitselt c bfca.com

Fric Johnson, Esq. (0065014)Sowald, Sowald & Clouse400 South Fifth Street, Suite 101Columbus, Ohio 43215-5430(614) 464-1877ejolmson(a)soWaldlaw.com

r

Counsel for the Columbus Bar Association

APR .'r ? 2008

uC^RN OF CQtlklJ'UN^^C(lUliTp^p

I EXHIBIT

JOINT NOTICE OF WAIVI:R

Now come Applicant and the Columbus Bar Association, by and through counsel, who

respectfully advise this honorable Court that the parties desire to waive objections and enter an

Order in this matter. The parties jointly ask the Court to adopt the Findings of Fact, Conclusions,

and R.ecommendations of ihe Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness.

Itespectfully submitted,

Charj& Kettlewell (0072448)Kenneth R. Ilonchatz (0062221)Christensen, Christensen, Donchatz,Kettlewell & Owens LLP100 East Campus View Bivd, Suite 360Columbus, OH 43235Phone: (614) 436-2750Fax: (614) 436-2865ckottle^^orekdo chatz.@co1umbusiaw org

Counsel for• ApplicantDr. Geoffrey C. Mitchell

ByEric Jo ison, Esq. (0065014)Sowald, Sowald & Clouse400 South Fifth Street, Suite 101Columbus, Ohio 43215-5430

Martha J. Sweterl'ztseh, Esq. ( 0015157)Benesch, Friedlander Coplan & Arnoff88 East Broad Street, Suit 900Columbus, Ohio 43215-3506

Counsel for the Columbus Bar Association

2

CERTIFiCATi^: OF SFRVCCE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Joint Notice of Waiver has been inailed by

regular U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this q'^' day of April, 2008, to the following:

Eric Johnson, Esq.Sowald, Sowald & Clouse400 South Fifth Street, Suite 101Columbus, Ohio 43215-5430

Counsel for the G'olumbus Bar Association

Martha J. Sweterlitseh, F.sq.Benesch, Friedlander Coplan & Arnoff88 East Broad Street, Suit 900Columbus, Ohio 43215-3506

Counsel for the Columbus t3arAssaciation

Char{lcs Kettlowell (0072448)

3

OCT-22-08 08:03 PM G.C.MITCHELL.M.D.

Jane Logan, Rer Fwd: Ro: Ethics Course

Tit: Jane Lopin <I.ogmi.96@osu, -dt>From: "Gcoflicy C. Mitchcll" <bmnitch@cohtmbus,iT,com>Sttbject: Re: Fwd: Re: Lthics CotuseCc:Bcc:Attached:

Al 01;14 PM 6/27/2008, you wrote:X-fronPort: hmdva-nix13.mail.rr.oont 635257636X-R R-Conne c ting-I P: 128,146,216.91X-Mailer QllALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9f)ate; Fry 27 Jun 2008 13;14;46 -0100To: "CicolTtvy C. Miteholl, M.D." <grnilch@cohnbus.rr.com>From: Jaue Logan <Logan.96@)osu.edu>Subject: Rcr Fwd: Re: Ethics CourseX-Sp.un-Scot•e: 0.90 () [Tag at 4.50] MSGID_FROM_MTA-IDX-CanItPRO-Stream: outboundX-Canit-Stats-li): 6uyes signalurr not availnbleX-Scttnned-E3y: Canit (www. roaruigpenguin . com) on 128.146.216,81

FINAL.LY!!!!

614 261 8236 P.02

John Couglilin ttnd I Rnaliy connected and he has 'aideed approved your auditing the Prof. Responsibilitycotvse with hint. The course is Tttes/'I•hurs from 8:45 a.m. to 10 a.m. in room 250. First week ofciasscs is Aug. I Bth. John's clttss usuaily ends a bit earGcr u1 the semestor than ottr othcr courses so Iw•oukl venture to say mid Noventber or thereabouts.

He did say you will bu rcquired tu partake in the course although you do not need to take the exam. I amDot 100% suro, but believe course materials will be printed for the students and picked up from otu printoffce. ( I catt tell you where it is locatcd) I suggest you monitor the Moritz web site for book and 1stday ussignntents. I don't think John has either, but one does never knows.......he cottld changc his mind.

If you huve any further questions plcase fecl free to contact nie.

Jane

Jane K. LoganThe Ohio Stute UniversityMoritz Collegc of LuwRegistrar's OfficeDrirtka liall55 W. 12th Ave.Coluntbua, ohio 43210

Printed for "Geoffrey C. Mitchell" <{;mltchQcoluntbus.rr.can> t

EXHIBIT

P-10/22/2qp8 WED 19io8 LJOE

To: "'Geoffrey C. Mitchell"' <gmitch@columbus.ir.com>Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:44:27 -0400Subject: RE: RE: Re: Ethics CourseThread-Topic: RE: Re: Ethics CourseThread-Index: AckvpheHadDnqE75S+a9BBW8/251vwAMY9ywAccept-Language: en-USX-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:acceptlanguage: en-USX-Mlf-Version: 6.1.1.9687X-Mlf-Uniqueld: o200810162112220005609

I am willing to attest that you have completed the course once we get to the last regular class(Tuesday Nov 25). If the admissions folks want you to take the exam you are free to do so but wewill need to make arrangements for the grading as we can not submit it through the normal processsince you are not an OSU student. If you need me to talk to anyone about this, let me know. Jon

-----Original Message-----From: Geoffrey C. Mitchell [ mailto:gmitch@columbus.rr.comSent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 11:45 AMTo: Coughlan, JonathanCc: ckettlewell@columbuslaw.orgSubject: Fwd: RE: Re: Ethics Course

<mailto:gmitch@columbus.rr.com> ]

Professor Coughlan,

I am so sorry to bother you with this. I thought it had been resolved but new problems havearisen. As you can see from the attached emails, on May 28th I was advised that an audit ofyour class would satisfy the Board's requirement. I am now advised that this is not or may notbe the case. You may recall that it took about six weeks to get registered for your course. Itwas my understanding that, as a law school graduate, the University does not have amechanism for me to fully registered in the sense that now seems to be envisioned by Ms.Ward and Ms. Richards. I am simply trying to satisfy the Court's requirement and take the barin February.

Are you able to attest to "successful completion" of the course without me taking the exam. Ifnot, may I take the exam? If I don't need to take the exam, when is the earliest date you couldattest to my "successful completion." Please advise as to your thoughts on this matter. Again,I am very sony to have to bring this to you.

Geoff Mitchell