trial court's order revoking an out-of-state lawyer's pro hac vice admission is reversed  [Added 2/15/08]

    Lawyer, who was admitted to practice in New York and various federal courts but not in Florida, filed a verified motion for pro hac vice admission in a Florida circuit court on behalf of clients who were defending against another lawyer's charging lien.  The motion included a statement, required by Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.510, that Lawyer was an active member in good standing of another state bar (New York).  The motion was filed on July 10.  On July 11 Lawyer's application for pro hac vice admission was accepted by the court.

    One day before the hearing on the underlying dispute the opposing law firm, by letter, "brought to the court’s attention that, at the time [Lawyer] moved to be admitted pro hac vice, he actually was not in good standing as a member of the New York State bar; the [opposing] firm had obtained a form, completed on July 25, 2007, by the clerk of the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, which indicated that [Lawyers'] registration fee, which was due March 2007, had not been paid."  Lawyer immediately contacted the New York bar authorities and took action to correct the situation.  He asserted that he had never received the fee notice.  Lawyer paid the fee and the New York bar authorities then "sent a letter verifying that [Lawyer] was in good standing as an attorney and that there was no record of any public censure, suspension, or disbarment in that court."  A follow-up letter a few weeks later stated that "at no time was [Lawyer] not entitled to practice law in the courts of [New York], and he was never marked as delinquent."

    The trial court was of the view that Lawyer "did not do anything to verify that he was in good standing when he applied, but only assumed he was."  The court apparently did not address the fact that the current form for pro hac vice admission must be verified bases on the lawyer's "knowledge and belief" (Fla.R.Jud.Admin. 2.510(b)), while the prior version of the rule (Fla.R.Jud.Admin. 2.061(a)) required that the motion show that they lawyer was in good standing in another state.  The trial court entered an order vacating its admission of Lawyer pro hac vice.

    Lawyer sought certiorari review in the Fourth DCA.  The appellate court granted the petition and quashed the trial court's order vacating Lawyer's admission.  Under the circumstances, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law.  "The trial court apparently accepted [Lawyer's] explanation that he had no reason to believe he did not continue to be in good standing; it did not find he had committed any intentional misconduct, refusing to sanction him even with the imposition of a fine. Its vacation of his status was merely for a technical reason which in no way adversely impacted the administration of justice."  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).