Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 83143.

Attorney(S)

Howard Messing, Nova University Shepard Broad Law Center, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner. William Kalish, Chairman, John H. Moore, Executive Director and Thomas A. Pobjecky, Gen. Counsel, Florida Bd. of Bar Examiners, Tallahassee, for respondent.

Judges

PER CURIAM.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Summary of Opinion: FLORIDA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS RE C.A.M., No. 83143 (Fla. Jul. 7, 1994)

Factual and Procedural Background

C.A.M. filed an application for admission to The Florida Bar on November 1, 1991. Following a formal hearing, the Florida Board of Bar Examiners found several specifications proven: numerous traffic violations resulting in suspension of her Florida driver's license (including suspensions for failure to pay fines and operating a vehicle under the influence); a misleading or less than candid response on her law school application concerning an 1988 aggravated assault arrest (the Board found one law‑school application specification not proven and another proven as specified); fraudulently obtaining a South Carolina driver's license in April 1990 and using that license in Florida while her Florida license was suspended; providing false information on a 1991 Florida driver's license application; and submitting a check for the bar examination fee that was returned for insufficient funds (the returned check was found proven but not disqualifying). The Board deemed specifications (1), (2)(B), (4) and (5) disqualifying and recommended denial of admission. C.A.M. petitioned this Court for review. The Supreme Court of Florida exercised jurisdiction under article V, section 15 of the Florida Constitution and reviewed the Board's recommendation.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the applicant's documented misconduct and lack of candor render her unfit for admission to The Florida Bar.
Whether the Florida Supreme Court should approve the Board of Bar Examiners' recommendation to deny admission based on the proven specifications.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant (C.A.M.)

She argued that sexual abuse by her father produced an aggressive personality, which she contends led to poor driving behavior and loss of control while driving.
She stated she is undergoing therapy for this problem.
At the formal hearing she admitted the causal connection between the abuse and her driving record was not a confirmed hypothesis.

Respondent (Board of Bar Examiners)

The Board presented findings that multiple specifications were proven, including falsification of driver's-license applications, use of a South Carolina license while her Florida license was suspended, misleading responses about an aggravated-assault arrest, and numerous traffic violations; it recommended denial of admission based on these findings and particularly on lack of candor.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Florida Bd. of Bar Examiners re M.R.I., 623 So.2d 1178, 1180 (Fla. 1993)	Supports the proposition that a lack of candor by an applicant is intolerable and disqualifying for membership in the Bar.	The Court cited this precedent to reinforce that C.A.M.'s demonstrated lack of candor (particularly falsified driver's-license applications and misrepresentations) is disqualifying.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court determined the record supports the Board's factual findings as to the proven specifications. It emphasized that C.A.M.'s lack of candor—most notably the fraudulent procurement of a South Carolina license to circumvent anticipated suspension of her Florida license and falsifications on license applications—was particularly egregious. The Court found that these actions demonstrated both a lack of maturity and a severe lack of candor, which is disqualifying for someone seeking to practice law. The Court considered C.A.M.'s mitigating evidence (academic achievement, expressed remorse, honesty during the application process, and letters of recommendation) but found them insufficient in light of the recent and serious nature of her conduct. The Court also reviewed C.A.M.'s assertion linking her behavior to childhood sexual abuse, noting she presented no medical evidence and admitted the causal link was unconfirmed; she acknowledged the abuse did not excuse dishonesty or legal violations. The returned check was found proven but not disqualifying. Based on this analysis, the Court agreed with the Board that C.A.M. failed to meet the standards of fitness required of Bar applicants.

Holding and Implications

The Court denied C.A.M.'s petition for admission to The Florida Bar.

Implications: The immediate effect is that C.A.M. is denied admission to The Florida Bar. The decision affirms the Board's findings and applies established principle that lack of candor is disqualifying; the opinion does not announce a novel legal rule beyond that application.

Show full summary ...

FLORIDA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS RE C.A.M.

PER CURIAM.

C.A.M. petitions this Court for review of the recommendation of the Florida Board of Bar Examiners that her application for admission to The Florida Bar be denied. We have jurisdiction under article V, section 15 of the Florida Constitution.

C.A.M. filed an application for admission to The Florida Bar on November 1, 1991. Following a formal hearing, the Board found the following specifications to be proven:

In the third specification C.A.M. was accused of giving a misleading answer relating to her arrest for aggravated assault on her bar application. Specification 2(A) alleges that C.A.M. gave a false response to a question on her law school application. The Board found that both of these specifications were not proven.

(1) C.A.M. displayed irresponsibility and a lack of respect for the law and the judicial process by (a) incurring numerous traffic violations since 1986 which led to the suspension of her license in 1990 for excessive violations within a thirty-six-month period, (b) having her license suspended on several occasions due to her failure to pay traffic fines, and (c) her operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.

(2)(B) C.A.M. gave a false, misleading, or less then candid response to a question on her law school application regarding the circumstances and disposition of her arrest for aggravated assault in 1988. C.A.M. did not disclose that she was arrested pursuant to a warrant charging her with aggravated assault with a tire iron. C.A.M. stated that she was arrested on an assault charge and that the charge was dropped immediately due to a mistake in identity. However, there was no mistake in identity and the State nol-prossed the charges because of the prosecutor's conclusion the victim lacked credibility and precipitated the crime.

(4) C.A.M. fraudulently obtained a South Carolina driver's license in April 1990 to circumvent an anticipated suspension of her Florida driver's license. In response to a question on the application asking whether her driving privileges had ever been revoked, C.A.M. falsely stated that they had not.

(5)(A) From April 1990 to October 1991 C.A.M. knowingly used a South Carolina license in Florida at the same time that her Florida license was suspended. This was a violation of section 322.30(1), Florida Statutes (1989).

(B) On an application for a Florida driver's license in October 1991, C.A.M. used her married name instead of her maiden name and failed to disclose that her driver's license had previously been suspended under her maiden name.

(6) C.A.M. submitted a check in the amount of $576 with her application for Florida's General Bar Examination that was returned by a bank because of insufficient funds in C.A.M.'s account.

The Board found specifications (1), (2)(B), (4) and (5) to be disqualifying for C.A.M.'s admission to the Bar. The sixth specification was found to be proven but not disqualifying. The record supports the Board's conclusion that the specifications were proven.

C.A.M.'s response on her law school application clearly displayed a lack of candor. However, specifications four and five are the most egregious. C.A.M. violated a Florida statute and falsified two applications for driver's licenses in two different states at the age of thirty-three while she was well into her law school education. This behavior not only shows a lack of maturity but also, more importantly, a severe lack of candor for a person embarking on the practice of law. A lack of candor on the part of an applicant is intolerable and disqualifying for membership in the Bar. See, e.g., Florida Bd. of Bar Examiners re M.R.I., 623 So.2d 1178, 1180 (Fla. 1993).

C.A.M. argues that as a result of being sexually abused by her father she has developed an aggressive personality. This aggression, she states, has led to her lack of control when she drives and her extremely poor driving record. C.A.M. is currently undergoing therapy for this problem. However, she presented no medical evidence to support her position, and she admitted during her formal hearing that the connection between her poor driving record and the abuse was not a confirmed hypothesis. In addition, she recognized that her experience as a child was not an excuse for her dishonesty and violations of the law.

On the other hand, C.A.M.'s academic prowess, remorse and honesty throughout the application process are mitigating factors. She also submits several letters of recommendation which describe her as a hard-working and honest individual. However, this mitigating evidence is insufficient to overcome the seriousness of C.A.M.'s conduct considering its recent nature. Therefore, we find that C.A.M. fails to meet the standards of fitness required of Bar applicants.

We approve the Board's findings and recommendation and deny C.A.M.'s petition for admission to The Florida Bar.

It is so ordered.

GRIMES, C.J., OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., and McDONALD, Senior Justice, concur.

FLORIDA BD. OF BAR EXAMINERS RE C.A.M