Tag Archive for: certification for out-of-state lawyers

THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINES EIGHT ATTORNEYS

Summary of orders issued Oct. 5 – Dec. 1, 2010

On The Florida Bar’s website, it was announced that The Florida Bar, the state’s guardian for the integrity of the legal profession, that the Florida Supreme Court in recent court orders disciplined eight attorneys, disbarring one and suspending six. Some attorneys received more than one form of discipline. One attorney was publicly reprimanded. Four attorneys were ordered to pay restitution.

It was noted that as an official arm of the Florida Supreme Court, The Florida Bar and its Department of Lawyer Regulation are charged with administering a statewide disciplinary system to enforce Supreme Court rules of professional conduct for the 90,000-plus lawyers admitted to practice law in Florida. Since Aug. 1, 2007, case files have been posted to attorneys’ individual Florida Bar profiles and may be reviewed at The Florida Bar’s website.
These Court orders are not final until time expires to file a rehearing motion and, if filed, determined. The filing of such a motion does not alter the effective date of the discipline. Disbarred lawyers may not re-apply for admission for five years. They are required to go through an extensive process that rejects many who apply. It includes a rigorous background check and retaking the bar exam.

This information was obtained from The Florida Bar’s website.

The Soreide Law Group, PLLC,  represents those seeking admittance to the Florida Bar, and existing lawyers, for both investigative hearings and formal hearings in front of the Florida Bar. For more information about our services please visit: www.floridabarhearing.com or call (888) 760-6552.

FLORIDA SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINES 22 ATTORNEYS 10/28/10

On October 28, 2010, The Florida Bar, the state’s guardian for the integrity of the legal profession, announces that the Florida Supreme Court in recent court orders disciplined 22 attorneys, disbarring eight and suspending 12. Some attorneys received more than one form of discipline. Two attorneys were publicly reprimanded and one was ordered to pay restitution.

As an official agency of the Florida Supreme Court, The Florida Bar and its Department of Lawyer Regulation, are charged with administering a statewide disciplinary system to enforce Supreme Court rules of professional conduct for the 88,000-plus lawyers admitted to practice law in Florida. Since Aug. 1, 2007, case files have been posted to attorneys’ individual Florida Bar profiles and may be reviewed at and/or downloaded from The Florida Bar’s website.

The court orders are not final until time expires to file a rehearing motion and, if filed, determined. The filing of such a motion does not alter the effective date of the discipline. Disbarred lawyers may not re-apply for admission for five years. They are required to go through an extensive process that rejects many who apply. It includes a rigorous background check and retaking the bar exam. Historically, fewer than five percent of disbarred lawyers seek readmission.
This information was obtained from The Florida Bar’s website.

The Soreide Law Group, PLLC,  represents those seeking admittance to the Florida Bar, and existing lawyers, for both investigative hearings and formal hearings in front of the Florida Bar. For more information about our services please visit: www.floridabarhearing.com or call (888) 760-6552.

The Disciplinary Actions for Substance-Abusing Attorneys Vary Widely

In the National Law Journal, Leigh Jones writes that an Indiana lawyer shows up at the courthouse drunk and gets into a car accident. His license is suspended, but stayed, for 180 days. A New Hampshire attorney and admitted alcoholic takes on what turns out to be a meritless case and conceals the defeat from clients. He is disbarred.

Also, an Iowa attorney and self-described alcohol abuser involved in a series of disciplinary actions, including taking a client’s money and abandoning a divorce case, gets a license suspension. He can apply to renew it in six months. Meanwhile, a Florida attorney who’s been sober and in a 12-step program since his arrest on drug charges in 2004 is disbarred for the six-year-old offense.

Each of these four cases involved substance abuse — and each had a very different outcome. The decisions, all from the past two years, show how broad the inconsistencies are in the way courts dole out punishment for substance-abusing attorneys. Whether because of uneven precedent, murky ethics rules or a hard-line stance against recognizing addiction as a mitigating factor in misconduct, courts can give attorneys little more than a slap on the wrist in some cases. In others, careers are finished.

In the Iowa case, for example, the court found that attorney Ross Hauser, who had practiced for 23 years, abandoned his client’s divorce action and failed to respond to disciplinary complaints. Records indicated that he admitted having a history of alcohol abuse. The Iowa Supreme Court in May, while recognizing the attorney’s multiple previous discipline problems, suspended his license with a chance for reinstatement after six months. The court rejected a recommendation by the state’s grievance commission that he provide ongoing evidence that substance abuse was not affecting his practice. The court wrote that it did not have a system in place to do so.

“There are concerns that attorneys are not being dealt with, one, in an enlightened manner and, two, consistently,” said Judge Robert Childers, chairman of the American Bar Association’s Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs. He sits on the Tennessee Circuit Court’s 30th Judicial District, based in Memphis.

In New Hampshire, William Conner took on a case representing a couple suing a contractor over the construction of their home. Court records said the lawyer, who admitted that he was an alcoholic and had a previous public censure, failed to pursue the case, which was later determined meritless. The court said he also hid from the couple that the case had been dismissed. The court ruled that, although alcoholism can be a mitigating factor, disbarment was the only appropriate punishment for him.

But, Indiana attorney Peter Katic appeared in court with a blood-alcohol content more than twice the legal limit and was involved in a car accident while intoxicated, according to court records. The Indiana Supreme Court last year suspended Katic, who had previously served as a judge and had been disciplined twice for judicial misconduct, for six months. It stayed the suspension provided that he meet the monitoring requirements of the lawyer assistance program.

Bill Weigel, president of the National Organization of Bar Counsel, recognizes the inconsistencies in how disciplinary bodies and courts deal with substance-abuse problems. Because the cases are so “fact specific,” consistency can be difficult to achieve, he said. “These cases are so situational.”

Richard Baron would like to think that courts have become more enlightened about attorney addiction, but he’s not convinced. For 25 years, Baron has represented attorneys, most with substance-abuse issues, in disciplinary actions. In August, he had one of the biggest surprises of his career. Although his client, Daniel Noah Liberman, had been drug- and alcohol-free for six years, the Florida Supreme Court disbarred him following his guilty plea to a 2004 drug trafficking charge. The court on Aug. 26 rejected a referee’s recommendation that Liberman receive a three-year suspension. He had no previous arrests or discipline problems. The court noted that he “had an illness; he was drug addict.”

Liberman, who had been supplying friends with small amounts of metham­phetamine and Ecstasy, was asked by a friend, who unbeknownst to Liberman had been arrested and was working as an informant, to supply him with Ecstasy for a party. The amount Liberman supplied met the limit for a trafficking charge.

In a dissent, Florida Supreme Court Justice Barbara Pariente wrote that Liberman had accepted responsibility for his conduct, had gone into a rehabilitation program immediately following his arrest and always had tested negative on random drug tests. He was a supervising tutor for children at a charity serving poor and homeless people. The justice wrote that he had continued to work as a paralegal and was “a productive member of society.” She noted that there was no evidence that Liberman’s conduct had harmed any clients.

Even so, the majority concluded that only disbarment could “measure up to the gravity of a conviction for illegal drug trafficking.” The majority also determined that the mitigating circumstances were insufficient to warrant anything less than disbarment. Liberman did not respond to requests for an interview. Baron said the decision demonstrates a “hard right turn” by the court and ignores precedent in a strikingly similar case. “They were out to punish him,” Baron said.

PREVENTION VS. PUNISHMENT

There are about 45 lawyers assistance programs across the country, most of which work directly with bar counsel and courts to provide confidential support and facilitate addiction recovery through drug testing, 12-step programs and mental health assistance. In many states, they provide recovery “contracts” with attorneys, who agree to submit to monitoring.

John Clegg wishes he’d never gotten involved with a lawyers assistance program. The former partner at McGlinchey Stafford got help from the Louisiana program in 2006 for a cocaine addiction after firm leaders confronted him about his erratic behavior. His billing had become inconsistent, he was looking disheveled at work and he had behaved aggressively during a firm-hosted golf tournament, where he told an off-color joke that offended attendees.

Firm leaders and lawyers assistance workers held an intervention for Clegg, who admitted that he had used crack cocaine. He went to 90-day in-patient treatment, and once he got out, he returned to work at the firm under a five-year “contract” with the assistance program.

With his approval, program workers monitored his recovery and — because he had waived the program’s duty of confidentiality — they communicated with the law firm about his recovery progress. When he twice tested positive for drug use, however, the firm, compelled by its duty to its clients, alerted disciplinary authorities.

In July, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that, although assistance program volunteers and employees had a duty of confidentiality that participants can waive, that duty did not extend to law firms themselves. The court suspended Clegg for a year and a day and deferred all but six months on the condition that he continue treatment through the lawyers assistance program.

Clegg, who could not be reached for comment for this story, said at the time the decision was issued that he had planned to seek rehabilitation on his own before the intervention but decided to use the Louisiana program once co-workers confronted him. He made the wrong decision about getting help with the Louisiana program, he said. The ruling, he believes, served as a deterrent to getting help. “You’re just setting yourself up for discipline,” he said. “The only charges against me were because I was a [legal assistance program] participant.”

ABA RULES

A way to bring consistency to disciplinary actions involving substance abuse may be through the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Last year, the ABA adopted a rule that substance abuse and mental health professionals hailed as a victory.

The rule allows for the conditional admission to practice for law graduates who have experienced chemical dependency. It provides that applicants who otherwise meet requirements but could have been prohibited from admission because of past drug or alcohol problems can practice if they demonstrate rehabilitation.

Four states are considering adopting the rule. Eighteen already have similar provisions in place. The purpose of the change is to prevent applicants seeking admission to the bar from keeping their addiction and recovery a secret. Otherwise qualified applicants often do not disclose their problems for fear they will prohibit admission, said Childers, chairman of the ABA’s Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs. Childers pushed for the ABA’s new rule. “It encourages students to get help early on,” he said.

The new rule is not about coddling lawyers, he said. “This really is aimed a protecting the public. There are lawyers out there getting licensed with no conditions, no monitoring in place.”

Childers said he is aware of the Liber­man disbarment in Florida and is troubled by it. The commission will hold its annual conference in October. He expects much discussion about the Liberman case. “I’m hoping it’s an aberration,” he said.

Creating a rule to bring about consistency for existing attorneys is more difficult than dealing with attorneys seeking admission, Childers said. The facts of each case vary significantly, including whether there are prior sanctions, the number of misconduct claims, the degree of client harm and whether laws were broken. The key, he said, is to bring all parties to the table, including bar counsel, judges and health care professionals, and to work through the ABA commission’s “protocol” to create a proposal.

“I’d like to see absolute uniformity, but the facts of every case are different,” he said. “That’s why we have judges.”

This article is from the National Law Journal.

Soreide Law Group, PLLC,  represents those seeking admittance to the Florida Bar, and existing lawyers, for both investigative hearings and formal hearings in front of the Florida Bar. For more information about our services please visit: www.floridabarhearing.com or call (888) 760-6552.

The Use of and Rehabilitation at Formal Hearings at The Florida Board of Bar Examiners

On the Florida Bar Journal’s website, Charles A. Stampelos writes the following:

The scenario is this: You have graduated from college and have finished two years of law school. You worked to earn good grades with the expectation that you will graduate and become a member of The Florida Bar. You will be taking the bar examination in a year and are reviewing the bar application now.
As you study the lengthy application, your anxiety level soars for you are asked to reveal that you have misdemeanor convictions for burglary and theft, that you are in arrears on several credit cards and loans, and that you have numerous traffic violations, and your driver license has been suspended.

Stampelos goes on to say that you must advise the board of your mistakes and be absolutely candid in the explanation. A lack of truth and candor during the application process will land you in scalding water in the investigative and formal hearing process and possibly put you in another line of work.

Having disclosed these facts, you may expect the board to invite you to an investigative hearing. You are entitled to be represented by counsel or you may go alone. If money is a problem, and it usually is, at least consult with an attorney who has handled these cases. The investigative hearing is a serious matter. Treat it as such. It bears repeating: A lack of candor during the bar application process, including the investigative hearing, could lead to your not being recommended for admission.

After the investigative hearing, the board will make one of the following determinations:

(a) that [you] have] established [your] qualifications as to character and fitness;
(b) that a Consent Agreement be entered into with [you] in lieu of the filing of Specifications pertaining to drug, alcohol or psychological problems. In a Consent Agreement, the Board shall be authorized to recommend to the Court the admission of the applicant who has agreed to abide by specified terms and conditions upon admission to The Florida Bar;
(c) that further investigation into [your] character and fitness is warranted;
(d) that Specifications be filed charging [you] with matters which if proven would preclude a favorable finding by the Board.

Fla. Bar Admiss. R. 3-22.5.

Based on the results of the investigative hearing, the board decides to file specifications (the charges) and you desire to contest them. You must answer them under oath. If you do not answer, the specifications are deemed admitted. Fla. Bar Admiss. R. 3-23, 3-23.1. Barring reaching a consent agreement as provided in Rule 3-22.5(b), you will proceed to a formal hearing. See Fla. Bar Admiss. R. 3-23.2 for a discussion of the formal hearing process, including but not limited to the notion that the “technical rules of evidence” do not apply. Witnesses can be subpoenaed by you and the board’s counsel. Pursuant to its procedures, the board will give you a copy of any exculpatory material and statements given to the board by witnesses who will testify live at the formal hearing. You may also obtain copies of the board exhibits to be offered at the formal hearing and copies of any documents you furnished the board during the application process, and copies of documents third parties (with their consent) furnished the board. However, except as noted here and in the admission rules, you are not entitled to a copy of the board’s investigative file. See generally Florida Board of Bar Examiners re: Interpretation of Article I, Section 14d of The Rules of the Supreme Court Relating to Admissions to the Bar, 581 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 1991); Fla. Bar Admiss. R. 1-60-1-64 regarding the scope of confidentiality of the application process. 

Your formal hearing will be conducted before a quorum of the board which shall consist of not less than five members of the board and will not include any member who participated in the investigative hearing. This provision may be waived with your consent. Fla. Bar Admiss. R. 3-23.2.

During the formal hearing, as a matter of practice, the board’s counsel goes first and places into evidence documentation which supports the specifications. Board counsel may call live witnesses. You may cross-examine. Then it is your turn. You can offer documentary evidence and call live witnesses. However, make no mistake, you are the focus of the formal hearing. The board must prove its specifications; you do not have to disprove them. Coleman v. Watts, 81 So. 2d 650, 655 (Fla. 1955). However, you have the burden to prove that you have good moral character and the requisite fitness to practice law in Florida.

The board, and necessarily the Florida Supreme Court, requires you to demonstrate present good moral character. Fla. Bar Admiss. R. 2-12. The court has adopted a rule to assist the board in making this determination:

3-12 Determination of Present Character. The Board shall determine whether the applicant or registrant has provided satisfactory evidence of good moral character. In addition to other factors in making this determination, the following factors should be considered in assigning weight and significance to prior conduct:

(a) age at the time of the conduct;
(b) recency of the conduct;
(c) reliability of the information concerning the conduct;
(d) seriousness of the conduct;
(e) factors underlying the conduct;
(f) cumulative effect of the conduct or information;
(g) evidence of rehabilitation;
(h) positive social contributions since the conduct;
(i) candor in the admissions process;
(j) materiality of any omissions or misrepresentations.

Fla. Bar Admiss. R. 3-12.

As you are having a problem with your prior misconduct, you should consider raising rehabilitation in your answer to the specifications and proving rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence. The board considers several factors including unimpeachable character and moral standing in the community, good reputation for professional ability, where applicable; lack of malice and ill feeling toward those who by duty were compelled to bring about the disciplinary, judicial, administrative, or other proceeding; restitution of funds or property, where applicable; and “positive action” such as a person’s occupation, religion, or community or civic service. The rehabilitation rule is clear: “Merely showing that an individual is now living as and doing those things he or she should have done throughout life, although necessary to prove rehabilitation, does not prove that the individual has undertaken a useful and constructive place in society.” See Fla. Bar Admiss. R. 3-13(a)-(g), for additional criteria.

Prior misconduct does not bar forever an applicant who has demonstrated good moral character. See, e.g., Florida Board of Bar Examiners re P.T.R., 662 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1995); Florida Board of Bar Examiners re M.C.A., 659 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1995); Florida Board of Bar Examiners re L.M.S., 647 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1994); Florida Bar Board Examiners re Kwasnick, 508 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 1987); Application of V.M.F. for Admission to The Florida Bar, 491 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 1986); In re Petition of Diez-Arguelles, 401 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 1981). It just may take some time and convincing.

The court has stated the test to be used to determine whether a person is of good moral character:

We must now determine two issues. First, are the facts in this case such that a reasonable man would have substantial doubts about the petitioner’s honesty, fairness, and respect for the rights of others and for the laws of the state and nation? Second, is the conduct involved in this case rationally connected to the petitioner’s fitness to practice law?

Florida Bar Board Examiners re G.W.L., 364 So. 2d 454, 459 (Fla. 1978).

For example, in V.M.F., 491 So. 2d 1104, the applicant, upon advice of his attorney/father, did not disclose two drug arrests or the circumstances on his Florida Bar application. V.M.F. also lied at the investigative hearing. However, the court felt that “the delay in admission of over one and one-half years [was] an adequate price to pay for his reluctance to reveal every aspect of” his arrest. The court noted that if V.M.F. “had willingly revealed all the circumstances surrounding the Michigan arrests there is no doubt that the Board should have recommended his admission. See Petition of Diez-Arguelles, 401 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 1981).” V.M.F., 491 So. 2d at 1107.

In Florida Board of Bar Examiners re J.A.S., 658 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1995), the court admitted J.A.S. conditioned on his continued participation in the Florida Lawyers Assistance program.11 His problems with the legal system appeared to stem from his addiction problem. Nevertheless, J.A.S. was admitted notwithstanding a 1976 conviction for disorderly conduct, a 1980 arrest for simple assault that was subsequently dismissed, a 1983 conviction for resisting arrest, and a conviction for loitering with the intent to use a controlled substance (heroin). He was also dismissed from the police force based upon the heroin conviction. Id. at 515. J.A.S. also exhibited financial irresponsibility by defaulting on a student loan, which he subsequently repaid, and gave responses to the board and others that were false, misleading, or lacking in candor. Id. at 515-16. The court concluded that none of the incidents were recent, that J.A.S. sought and received professional help, and that J.A.S. had proven rehabilitation. Id.

J.A.S. was active in Narcotics Anonymous and served as a helpline volunteer, was a volunteer member in the guardian ad litem program, volunteered as a carpenter after Hurricane Andrew struck Miami and volunteered with the Dade County Bar Association, and “replaced his former anger with acceptance and now tries to do things for others.” Justice Harding with three justices concurring, found that J.A.S. “presented the same type of overwhelming evidence of rehabilitation that th[e] Court found dispositive in D.M.J.,” notwithstanding recognizing that the court is “required to and [does] give the Board’s findings great weight.” Id. at 517.

In Florida Bar Board Examiners re D.M.J., 586 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 1991), the board found after the investigative and formal hearings, that five specifications had been proven and the applicant knowingly participated in the criminal conspiracy to import cocaine; gave false testimony at the investigative hearing as to his knowledge of the importation scheme; failed to disclose on an employment application that he was dismissed from the University of Mississippi for scholastic reasons and falsely stated his major at another university; falsely stated on his law school application the reasons he was dismissed from the University of Mississippi and failed to disclose he attended East Carolina University; and displayed financial irresponsibility by failing to satisfy a judgment against him in 1981 until 1986. The board concluded that specifications 3, 4, and 5 were not disqualifying in and of themselves, but that specification 1 “was disqualifying in and of itself or in conjunction with the remaining specifications.” Id. at 1050 n.1. Despite upholding “[t]he Board’s determination that [D.M.J.] knowingly participated in the drug conspiracy,” the court concluded D.M.J. provided sufficient evidence of rehabilitation and ordered his admission. Id. at 1050-51.

D.M.J. presented numerous character witnesses, whose testimony was “highly favorable and uncontroverted.” The favorable recommendations included the judge for whom he clerked, two Florida attorneys who knew him for many years, and an attorney for whom he previously clerked. Id. at 1050. Two former law school professors submitted affidavits attesting to his “outstanding legal ability, honesty, generosity, and integrity.” Witnesses also corroborated D.M.J.’s charitable work “over the past several years for the Civil Air Patrol and the Kiwanis Club.” Id. at 1051. The court further noted that the offense in question occurred more than 12 years ago and there was no indication of conduct which would warrant disqualification since that time. The court concluded that D.M.J. “demonstrated that he currently me[t] the standards of conduct and fitness . . . .” Id. (emphasis added).

In L.M.S., the court ordered admission notwithstanding the board’s negative recommendation. L.M.S., 647 So. 2d at 839. During L.M.S.’s final semester (fall of 1991) of law school, she was enrolled in a supervised research and writing course that required completion of a paper. She originally planned to sit for the General Bar Examination in February 1992, but postponed that sitting because of financial considerations. She did not complete her paper until February 1992 and had not received a grade on the paper when she sat for the general bar examination in July 1992. Her grades were impounded because she could not show she had completed her graduation requirements when she took the test.

“L.M.S. admits that she made an error in judgment in sitting for the July 1992 examination. She maintained that she honestly believed she was eligible to take the exam even though she had not received a grade for her paper and she had received two letters from her law school advising her that she might be ineligible to sit for the Bar exam because she had not completed her graduation requirements.” Id. (emphasis added).

Specifications were filed and the board found two specifications were proven, but not disqualifying. It found that five specifications were disqualifying because they demonstrated her lack of honesty, truthfulness, and candor. The board also found L.M.S.’s testimony was “unreasonable and unworthy of belief.” Id.

The board identified numerous problems L.M.S. had with candor before the board. They all emanated, however, from one basic issue: whether she was candid when she advised the board that she had completed the requirements for graduation when, in fact, she had not.
The court did not condone L.M.S.’s statements that were false, misleading, or lacking in candor, but found she should be admitted, assuming she passed the bar examination. She acknowledged her mistakes; her employers considered her dependable and hardworking; and she had “not engaged in any behavior similar to that which led to her taking the July 1992 exam.” Id. at 839. “[I]n light of L.M.S.’s overall record, it [was] not clear [to the Court] what further rehabilitation she could show.” Id.

In P.T.R., the applicant had been disbarred in Florida for stealing from a client and misleading the court. He was readmitted. The court discusses each of the rule rehabilitation criteria. The court felt that P.T.R.’s transgression was a single, isolated episode and that he proved rehabilitation by performing volunteer work for his homeowner’s association, donating blood (he had a rare type), service as treasurer, coach, or umpire for his son’s Little League team, traveling with his daughter to swim meets when she was younger, and teaching martial arts to children for free.

In M.C.A., the applicant was accused of cheating on a law school exam and sanctioned by the law school pursuant to a settlement agreement. She advised the board of the incident, but protested her innocence both before the law school and before the board. The board recommended denial of admission because she maintained she did not cheat on the exam. The court rejected this “Catch-22″ position. The court also concluded that she proved her “present fitness” to practice law. The incident occurred almost five years ago; she complied with the conditions of the settlement agreement entered into with the law school; she applied for and was readmitted to the law school; favorable letters of recommendation were submitted in her behalf; and “[s]everal of her professors wrote that the cheating incident was totally out of character for [her] and that they did not believe that she had in fact cheated.” Id. at 35. In light of her overall record, the court granted admission. The case is not so much one of rehabilitation as it is a case of successfully overcoming one isolated, yet serious, incident.

In contrast, in Florida Board of Bar Examiners re J.J.J., 682 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1996), a lawyer was suspended for three years in his home state which followed money laundering/tax convictions. He was reinstated and applied for admission in Florida. The court denied admission finding that his sporadic participation in a local service organization, active participation in local bar association, and pro bono legal service was not enough to establish rehabilitation in light of the serious misconduct.

W.H.V.D. was denied admission twice. Florida Board of Bar Examiners re W.H.V.D., 653 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1995). He was initially denied because of his conduct while he served as a trustee for a church and school stewardship fund during the mid-1970s. This conduct included making unauthorized loans while he was a trustee and engaging in unethical behavior such as conflict of interest and breach of fiduciary duty. He also demonstrated a lack of candor in dealing with the board. He reapplied and was required to prove rehabilitation. He failed to do so.

The board found and the court concluded that W.H.V.D. did not “fully appreciate either the seriousness of his past behavior or the consequences of his present behavior.” Id. at 388. Also, he did not take the “extra steps to show rehabilitation” since being denied admission the first time. Opening his house to migrants on two occasions and doing well at work were insufficient. The board noted in its report on rehabilitation that they would view favorably activities such as counseling or teaching young law students and young lawyers on ethical considerations. Id. at 388 n.1. The court was confident that he could demonstrate positive action showing rehabilitation in other ways as well. Id.

As a general rule, if the board does not recommend your admission after the formal hearing and your case is not ripe for a conditional admission, your ability to reapply for admission will be withheld for a specified period not to exceed two years. Fla. Bar Admiss. R. 3-23.6(c). Following a formal hearing, and sometimes following an investigative hearing, the board has recommended that admission be withheld for one year where rehabilitation was shown but insufficient. Also, the court has authorized applicants to reapply for admission within one year, rather than wait the ususal two-year period. See, e.g, Florida Board of Bar Examiners re J.E.G.R., 720 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 1998); Florida Board of Bar Examiners re N.W.R., 674 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 1996); Florida Board of Bar Examiners re F.O.L., 646 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1994); Florida Board of Bar Examiners re B.H.A., 626 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 1993).

If you face a formal hearing and have committed one or more acts of misconduct, rehabilitation may be at issue, but you have to assert and prove it. If you have to reapply for admission after a negative recommendation, including being unsuccessful in seeking review by the court, you must prove rehabilitation the next time through the system. In order to have any reasonable expectation of gaining admission, you must plan ahead and develop a plan and begin your rehabilitation now.
This very valuable information was written by Charles A. Stampelos and appears on the Florida Bar Journal’s website.

The Soreide Law Group, PLLC,  represents those seeking admittance to the Florida Bar, and existing lawyers, for both investigative hearings and formal hearings in front of the Florida Bar. For more information about our services please visit: www.floridabarhearing.com or call (888) 760-6552.

FLORIDA SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINES 27 ATTORNEYS

On July 29,2010, The Florida Bar, the state’s guardian for the integrity of the legal profession, announced that the Florida Supreme Court in recent court orders disciplined 27 attorneys, disbarring eight and suspending 17. Some attorneys received more than one form of discipline. Two attorneys were publicly reprimanded and three were placed on probation. Three were ordered to pay restitution.

The Florida Bar, as an official agency of the Florida Supreme Court, and its Department of Lawyer Regulation are charged with administering a statewide disciplinary system to enforce Supreme Court rules of professional conduct for the 88,000-plus lawyers admitted to practice law in Florida. Since Aug. 1, 2007, case files have been posted to attorneys’ individual Florida Bar profiles and may be reviewed at and/or downloaded from The Florida Bar’s website.

The court orders are not final until time expires to file a rehearing motion and, if filed, determined. The filing of such a motion does not alter the effective date of the discipline. Disbarred lawyers may not re-apply for admission for five years. They are required to go through an extensive process that rejects many who apply. It includes a rigorous background check and retaking the bar exam. Historically, fewer than 5 percent of disbarred lawyers seek readmission.

The above information was obtained from The Florida Bar’s website.

Soreide Law Group, PLLC,  represents Florida Bar applicants and attorneys,  before the Florida Board of Bar Examiners and the Florida Bar Grievance Committee. For more information about our services please visit: www.floridabarhearing.com or call (888) 760-6552.

 

FLORIDA BAR WARNS PUBLIC ABOUT UNETHICAL LAWYERS ESPECIALLY REGARDING THE GULF OIL SPILL.

It was reported in the Historic City News of St. John’s County, FL, that reporters have received an advisory from The Florida Bar regarding the gulf oil spill and their commitment to protect the public from unethical lawyers as well as non-lawyers offering legal representation.

To assist legitimate disaster victims who may need legal representation, there are several guides in the Public Information section of www.floridabar.org , including “Mass Disaster – A Victim’s Guide,” “A Consumer Guide to Client’s Rights,” “How to Find a Lawyer in Florida” and “Who Should I Hire to Help Me with My Legal Problem.”

Although to date there have been no recorded injuries to St. Johns County’s coastline, The Florida Bar is aware that there are unethical lawyers and non-lawyers offering legal representation under the pretense of consumer advocacy “watchdogs” or “whistleblowers” when, in reality, their true purpose is to instigate frivolous actions and defraud their clients of their time and money.

Floridians looking for a lawyer should make sure the person they are considering is eligible to practice in our state. This can be done by going to www.floridabar.org and using the Find a Lawyer feature in the blue bar at the top of the page. The search will link to a profile page that lists the lawyer’s eligibility to practice, address, Bar number and, in some cases, areas of legal practice. If you have questions about a lawyer’s status, call the membership records department at The Florida Bar toll-free at 1-866-854-5050.

Although there are limited circumstances when lawyers who are not licensed to practice in Florida may be authorized to appear in court, out-of-state lawyers may not be able to represent you. Consumers must also be cautious about non-lawyers or organizations that offer to provide legal representation. If you believe a person offering legal representation is not a lawyer or is not eligible to practice law in Florida, call The Florida Bar Unlicensed Practice of Law Department toll-free at 1-800-342-8060, extension 5840.

Bar-sponsored lawyer referral services are also available statewide; for a referral please call toll-free 1-800-342-8011.

Lawyer Conduct:
In the event of a disaster, such as the current oil spill, The Florida Bar is on high alert for violations of its rules especially with regard to solicitation. The Florida Bar will also be vigilant in investigating all complaints filed against individual lawyers who may be in violation of the solicitation rules.

Lawyers cannot mail solicitations within 30 days of a disaster causing personal injury or actual property damage, however, the 30-day rule does not apply if the only damages are economic. Direct mail solicitations must comply with the bar’s lawyer advertising rules and be filed with The Florida Bar for review. Fees from solicitation are subject to forfeiture in cases involving violations of the advertising rules.

Solicitation, whether by a lawyer personally or by someone else on his or her behalf, is prohibited, according to Bar Rule 4-7.4. Solicitation includes any direct contact face-to-face, by telephone, by fax or telegraph. It includes passing out business cards or other law firm information.

Volunteer lawyers who are offering their services to victims at no charge do not violate the anti-solicitation rule.

Soreide Law Group represents those seeking admittance to the Florida Bar, and existing lawyers, for both investigative hearings and formal hearings in front of the Florida Bar. For more information about our services or to speak to an attorney please visit: www.floridabarhearing.com or call (888) 760-6552.

RULE 11-1.10 CERTIFICATION OF MEMBERS OF OUT-OF-STATE BARS

Lawyer Regulation

Rules Regulating The Florida Bar

11 RULES GOVERNING THE LAW SCHOOL PRACTICE PROGRAM
11-1 GENERALLY

(a) Persons Who Are Authorized to Appear. A member of an out-of-state bar may practice law in Florida pursuant to this chapter if:

(1) the appearance is made as an employee of the attorney general, a state attorney, a public defender, or the capital collateral representative; and

(2) the member of an out-of-state bar has made an application for admission to The Florida Bar; and

(3) the member of an out-of-state bar submits to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida for disciplinary purposes; and

(4) the member of an out-of-state bar is in good standing with that bar and is not currently the subject of disciplinary proceedings.

(b) Term of Certification. The maximum term of certification under this section shall be 12 months from the date of certification; provided, that the certification may extend beyond 12 months if the certificate holder has passed the Florida bar examination and is awaiting the results of the character and fitness evaluation of the Florida Board of Bar Examiners. Certification may be withdrawn in the same manner as provided for the withdrawal of certification by a law school dean.

(c) Termination of Certification. The failure to take the next available Florida bar examination, failure of any portion of the Florida bar examination, or denial of admission to The Florida Bar shall terminate certification hereunder.

Soreide Law Group represents lawyers in front of the Flordia Bar and also those in need of representation for an investigative hearing or formal hearing during the admittance process. To speak to an attorney please  call: (888) 760-6552 or visit our website at: www.floridabarhearing.com .