agree that Mikulin failed to demonstrate that he possesses the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications under Gov.Bar R. 1(11) to be admitted to the bar. Specifically, we conclude that his disregard of traffic laws and his neglect of his financial responsibilities present sufficient grounds for disapproving his application. See Gov.Bar R. I(ll)(D)(3)(f) and (k); see also In re Application of Kapel, 72 Ohio St.3d 532, 651 N.E.2d 955 (1995) (finding that the applicant’s disorderly conduct conviction and repeated traffic violations, including speeding, demonstrated that the applicant lacked the requisite character and fitness for the practice of law but permitting the applicant to reapply); In re Application of Acton, 121 Ohio St.3d 154, 2009-Ohio-499, 902 N.E.2d 966, ¶ 26 (<HOLDING>). {¶ 10} We therefore accept the board’s
holding that the weight afforded to the applicants evidence in immigration proceedings lies largely within the discretion of the agency holding that ability of applicants family to remain unharmed cuts against finding of wellfounded fear holding that the weight afforded to the applicants evidence in immigration proceedings lie largely within the discretion of the ij holding that a husband cannot be required to pay a support award that exceeds his financial ability recognizing that an applicants neglect of his or her own financial responsibilities bodes ill for the applicants ability to oversee the interests of clients with the diligence and integrity required of the profession