Florida Supreme Court rejects stipulation for reinstatement of suspended lawyer due to her failure to pay restitution and costs.  [Added 2/19/10]

    Lawyer, who had been suspended from the practice of law, and the Florida Bar stipulated to Lawyer's reinstatement.  Apparently the referee approved the stipulation.  On review, however, in an order the Florida Supreme Court disapproved the referee's report and rejected the stipulation.

    Two justices dissented to the Court's decision.  Lawyer apparently had not paid the restitution ordered at the time of her suspension ($1600 to one client and $800 to another), nor paid the costs of more than $4600.  According to the Bar, Lawyer had not paid "due to financial constraints."  Justice Pariente, in her dissent joined by Justice Perry, stated:  "Neither the Bar nor the referee found any evidence of bad faith.  The Bar, after determining the respondent’s financial inability to pay, reimbursed the clients and thus the respondent now owes The Florida Bar Client Security Fund.  The Bar agreed to a payment plan, approved by the Board of Governors and the referee, and the repayment would be a condition of her probation.  I would thus grant the petition for reinstatement and require compliance with the payment plan to be a condition of probation.  If the Court is going to require either full repayment or at least a certain amount to be repaid, even where there are no financial means, we should set forth those requirements in a clearly enunciated rule rather than on an ad hoc basis without prior notice or explanation."  Florida Bar re: Thompson (Fla., No. SC09-263, 2/18/1020).

Florida Supreme Court sanctions disbarred lawyer who submitted numerous filings seeking readmission.  [Added 9/2/09]

    Lawyer was disbarred in 1997 for 20 years.  Even though disbarred until at least 2017, Lawyer submitted numerous filings to the Florida Supreme Court seeking readmission.  The Court entered an order to show cause why Lawyer should not be sanctioned for "submitting frivolous filings."

    Despite Lawyer's response, which made the "inapt assertion that he is an industrious professional who is 'not inclined to firvolity,'" the Court imposed sanctions.  Specifically, the Court instructed the Clerk of the Court "to reject for filing any future pleadings, petitions, motions, notices, or other filings submitted by [Lawyer] that are related to his judgments of disbarment or his potential readmission to The Florida Bar, unless the filings are signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar."  Florida Board of Bar Examiners re: Anthony Eladio Ramos, __ So.3d ___, 34 Fla.L.Weekly S483 (Fla., No. SC07-2388, 8/27/2009) 2009 WL 2612530.

Florida Supreme Court refuses reinstatement for a lawyer who engaged in the "practice of law" while suspended; definition discussed.  [Added 7/13/09]

    In 2006 Lawyer was suspended by the Florida Supreme Court for negligently misappropriating trust funds.  Lawyer subsequently petitioned for reinstatement.  While suspended he had performed paralegal work to two attorneys and also earned "substantial sums as a private consultant with a consulting business he created to advise arcades."  Before his suspension Lawyer had practiced primarily in the gaming law area.

    The referee who presided over the reinstatement hearing found that Lawyer's financial situation was unstable, that he owes a substantial sum to the IRS, that he was "horrible at financial management," and that he failed to take a law office management course for which he had enrolled.  Additionally, while suspended Lawyer cashed checks that were made out to him but were to be used to pay for the legal services of an attorney. and Lawyer did not keep adequate financial records for his consulting business.  The referee recommended that Lawyer be reinstated, but with conditions.  The Bar opposed reinstatement and petitioned for Supreme Court review.

    The Court agreed with the Bar and denied reinstatement.  Contrary to the referee's conclusion, the Court concluded that Lawyer's activities while suspended constituted the practice of law.  "[A]lthough [Lawyer] informed his clients that he could not dispense legal advice, he was not simply identifying applicable statutes and ordinances with regard to opening arcades.  In fact, [Lawyer] testified that he would find the ordinances applicable to the jurisdiction in which an arcade was located and admittedly provided this advice based on his legal skill, which is greater than that possessed by the average citizen.  Further, as stated above, [Lawyer] gave advice on opening arcades, reported on changes in the law applicable to this area, reviewed leases, researched ordinances applicable to new arcade sites, and consulted with a representative of a state attorney’s office on the proper interpretation of gaming law for an attorney’s criminal client.  Based on the definition in [State ex rel. Florida Bar v.] Sperry [140 So.2d 587, 591 (Fla. 1962)], trading on one’s enhanced legal skill and knowledge to advise clients on how to legally proceed with a business transaction and on changes in the law based on statutory research and legal interpretation is the province of licensed attorneys.  Accordingly, the referee’s conclusion that [Lawyer]’s actions did not constitute the practice of law is erroneous and is disapproved."

    The Court further concluded that Lawyer had deposited funds that "were certainly in the nature of trust funds" into his business account on which a lien later was placed.  Lawyer's "poor judgment in accepting, managing, and depositing these checks, along with the fact that his financial management skills are 'horrible,' demonstrates his financial irresponsibility, a disqualifying factor in reinstatement proceedings.  See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 3.10(f)(1)(G).  This factor weighs especially heavy here because this same weakness caused or contributed to the conduct that led to [Lawyer]’s suspension in the first place."

    Lawyer's restatement was denied and the Court ordered that he could not reapply for at least one year.  Florida Bar re: Michael Howard Wolf, __ So.3d ___, 34 Fla.L.Weekly S413 (Fla., No. SC08-250, 7/9/2009), 2009 WL 1955215.

Florida Supreme Court approves Board of Bar Examiners' decision to cease processing disbarred lawyer's application for readmission.  [Added 2/4/09]

    Lawyer was suspended from the Florida Bar in 1988 for trust account violations.  At the time of his suspension Lawyer was also admitted to the Washington D.C. bar.  Lawyer "Webster conveniently failed to inform the D.C. Bar of his disciplinary problems and suspension in Florida and thus remained in good standing in that jurisdiction."  Lawyer subsequently used his D.C. bar admission to obtain admission to the bars of the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of Palau.  Lawyer did not disclose his membership in, and disciplinary problems with, the Florida Bar.  Lawyer later was terminated from his employment as a Special Interim Prosecutor in Palau.  Lawyer's failure to disclose the information about his Florida misconduct came to light and Lawyer was disbarred from the Micronesia and Palau bars.  As a consequence, Lawyer was then disbarred from the D.C. bar as well.  In turn, Lawyer's professional misconduct in those jurisdictions resulted in the Florida Supreme Court imposing reciprocal disbarment on Lawyer in Florida.

    Lawyer filed an application for readmission to the Florida Bar in 2004.  The Board of Bar Examiners filed specifications in 2006.  About 4 months before the hearing on the specifications, the Board informed Lawyer that "it had ceased processing his application on the ground that he was and remains ineligible for readmission pursuant to [the Supreme] Court’s decisions in Florida Board of Bar Examiners re Utterback, No. SC06-2309 (Fla. Mar. 8, 2007) (corrected order), and Florida Board of Bar Examiners re Davis, No. SC05-2190 (Fla. Feb. 16, 2006), rehearing denied (June 22, 2006)."  Lawyer petitioned for Supreme Court review of the Board's decision.

    By a 4-3 vote the Supreme Court approved the Board's action, holding that Lawyer "was and remains ineligible to apply for readmission in Florida."  The court quoted Rule 2-13.1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court Relating to Admissions to the Bar, which provides:  "A person who has been disbarred from the practice of law, or who has resigned pending disciplinary proceedings, will not be eligible to apply for a period of 5 years from the date of disbarment, or 3 years from the date of resignation, or such longer period as is set for readmission by the jurisdictional authority."

    The Court discussed in some detail its conclusion that Lawyer's misconduct, which led to his reciprocal disbarment in Florida, occurred in the other jurisdictions.  Thus, in the Court's view, Florida was not the "jurisdictional authority" referenced in Rule 2-13.1.  The Court stated that Lawyer "has not gained readmission in Palau, Micronesia, and Washington, D.C., and, therefore, is ineligible to apply for readmission here under rule 2-13.1 and supporting case law.  See, e.g., [Florida Board of Bar Examiners re:] Higgins, 772 So. 2d [486 (Fla. 2000) ] at 486 ('On its face, then, because Higgins has been permanently disbarred in [the jurisdictional situs of his professional misconduct], [rule 2-13.1] precludes his application for readmission in Florida.')."  (Footnote omitted.)  The Court rejected Lawyer's contention that Florida, not Palau, is his "home state" and that he should not be required to be readmitted in Palau before being readmitted in Florida.  Citing Florida Bar v. Shapiro, 914 So.2d 956 (Fla. 2005) (table), the Court stated:  "an attorney’s 'home state' for purposes of attorney discipline is determined by consideration of the jurisdiction in which the attorney was practicing when the misconduct occurred, the situs of the misconduct that resulted in discipline, and the jurisdiction in which disciplinary proceedings were first initiated.  Contrary to the view of the dissent, [Lawyer] was not practicing law in Florida when the subject misconduct occurred — in fact, at that time, he was suspended here."

    In conclusion, the Court summarized its decision:  "[W]e continue to follow well-established Florida law and hold that an attorney who has been (i) disbarred or suspended in a foreign jurisdiction for misconduct which occurred in that foreign jurisdiction, and (ii) disbarred or suspended in Florida in reciprocal disciplinary proceedings shall remain ineligible to apply for readmission (if disbarred) or to petition for reinstatement (if suspended) until first readmitted or reinstated in the foreign jurisdiction.  If we failed to follow this sound precedent, we would only open Florida as a haven for those attorneys disbarred or suspended in foreign jurisdictions.  . . .  We should not allow the practice of law in Florida by one disbarred or suspended in a foreign state."

    A dissenting opinion authored by Justice Pariente and joined by Justices Wells and Anstead expressed the view that Florida, not Palau, was the relevant "jurisdictional authority" for purposes of Rule 2-13.1.  Accordingly, the dissent would allow the matter to proceed to a formal hearing before the Board of Bar Examiners.  Florida Board of Bar Examiners re: Webster, 3 So.3d 1058 (Fla. 2009).

Trial court's order revoking an out-of-state lawyer's pro hac vice admission is reversed  [Added 2/15/08]  --  Brooks v. AMP Services Limited, 979 So.2d 435 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (on motion for clarification).

Rejecting Board of Bar Examiners' recommendation, Florida Supreme Court denies readmission to lawyer who had resigned for disciplinary reasons.  [Added 6/17/07]  --  Florida Board of Bar Examiners re: Allan Barry Marks, 959 So.2d 228 (Fla. 2007).

Florida Supreme Court rejects recommendation from Board of Bar Examiners that applicant be conditionally admitted.  [Added 2/5/07]  --  Florida Board of Bar Examiners re: M.B.S., 955 So.2d 504 (Fla. 2007).

Florida Supreme Court rejects Bar Examiners' recommendation to readmit lawyer who resigned for disciplinary reasons; rehabilitation not shown.  Florida Board of Bar Examiners re: Fred C. McMahan, 944 So.2d 335 (Fla. 2006).

Resigned lawyer's failure to rectify "financial irresponsibility" results in denial of readmission.  Florida Board of Bar Examiners re:  Steven A. Papy, Sr., 901 So.2d 870 (Fla. 2005).

Lawyer's conditional bar admission revoked for material misstatements regarding meeting child support obligations; Supreme Court discourages "credit string" conditional admissions.  The Florida Board of Bar Examiners re: Chavez, 894 So.2d 1 (Fla. 2004) (as revised).

Bar applicant's lack of candor results in denial of admission and extended disqualification period.  Florida Board of Bar Examiners re:  O.C.M., 850 So.2d 497 (Fla. 2003).