- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
FLORIDA BD. OF BAR EXAMINERS RE: E.R.M
Factual and Procedural Background
E.R.M., a member of the New York State Bar, petitioned this Court for review of the Florida Board of Bar Examiners' recommendation that his application for admission to The Florida Bar be denied. Following a formal hearing, the Board found multiple specifications proven: (1) E.R.M. gave false or misleading testimony at an investigative hearing by stating he had signed and sent a deed to a Cayman Islands house when he had not; (2) he failed to disclose a 1988 judgment and an outstanding debt in his bar application and later made false statements in an amendment denying knowledge of that judgment; (3) while representing a bank in New York he participated in issuance of an improperly issued restraining order that resulted in a 1989 judgment (later satisfied by the client); (4) while representing an estate he failed to provide an accounting and received a grievance letter (ultimately a letter of caution) for neglecting a legal matter; and (5) he failed to pay substantial court-ordered child support between 1986 and 1989, producing judgments later vacated in the divorce. The Board concluded that, taken in the aggregate, the proven specifications justified nonadmission and recommended denial of his application. E.R.M. petitioned the Supreme Court of Florida for review; the Court exercised jurisdiction under article V, section 15 of the Florida Constitution.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the proven specifications of false testimony, nondisclosure of debts/judgments, professional neglect, and failure to pay child support disqualify E.R.M. from admission to The Florida Bar.
- Whether the applicant's proffered explanations and character evidence overcome the Board's findings and support admission despite the proven misconduct.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- E.R.M. admitted several specifications but contended his false testimony about the Cayman deed resulted from fatigue and confusion and was corrected in an amendment to the record.
- He argued the proven specifications were not disqualifying for admission to The Florida Bar.
- He contended the Board ignored his character witnesses and that such character evidence should mitigate the findings.
Respondent (Board of Bar Examiners) Position
- The Board found the specified acts proven and emphasized that the applicant admitted fabricating testimony about the Grand Cayman deed, reflecting a lack of appreciation for the standards and ideals of the legal profession.
- The Board recommended denial of admission based on the aggregate weight of the proven specifications.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Florida Board of Bar Examiners re M.R.I., 623 So.2d 1178 (Fla. 1993) | The supreme importance of truthfulness and candor as a qualification for membership in The Florida Bar: "no qualification for membership in The Florida Bar is more important than truthfulness and candor." | The Court relied on this principle to treat the applicant's knowing false testimony under oath as particularly serious and to support the conclusion that the proven specifications, in the aggregate, justified nonadmission. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court found competent and substantial evidence supporting the Board's factual findings. It highlighted the gravity of E.R.M.'s knowingly false testimony under oath about the Cayman deed and invoked the principle—cited from Florida Board of Bar Examiners re M.R.I.—that truthfulness and candor are paramount qualifications for bar membership. Evaluating the proven specifications collectively, the Court determined they justified nonadmission. The Court also concluded the applicant's character evidence and explanations were insufficient to overcome the demonstrated improper conduct. On that basis the Court approved the Board's findings and recommendation to deny admission.
Holding and Implications
Petition for admission denied.
Direct effect: The Court approved the Board's findings and recommendation and denied E.R.M.'s petition for admission to The Florida Bar.
The opinion reaffirmed the centrality of truthfulness and candor for bar applicants; it does not announce a new precedent beyond applying that established principle to the facts of this case.
PER CURIAM.
E.R.M. petitions the Court for review of the recommendation of the Florida Board of Bar Examiners that his application for admission to The Florida Bar be denied. We have jurisdiction under article V, section 15 of the Florida Constitution.
E.R.M. is a member of the New York State Bar who seeks admission to The Florida Bar. Following a formal hearing, the Board found that certain specifications which are summarized below had been proven:
1(A). E.R.M. was getting divorced and the court had ordered that the marital property be distributed in a certain fashion. At the investigative hearing, E.R.M. was questioned about some marital property in the Cayman Islands. He testified that he had signed a deed to the Cayman house and sent it to his wife. E.R.M.'s testimony was false, misleading, or lacking in candor in that he had not signed a deed to the Cayman house or sent such a signed deed to his wife.
2(A). In his application for admission to the Bar, question 14.b.(1) asks for a list of all debts over $500 and question 14.c. asks for a list of all judgments entered in favor of a creditor. E.R.M.'s response to these questions was false, misleading, or lacking in candor in that he failed to reveal a judgment entered in 1988 in favor of a creditor in the amount of $400.00. E.R.M. also failed to reveal an outstanding debt to the creditor of $510.00 that was listed in his 1990 bankruptcy documents.
2(B). In an amendment to his Bar application, E.R.M. stated that he had no knowledge of any lawsuit or judgment against him by the creditor referred to in specification 2(A) and that he did not owe him any money. These statements were false, misleading, or lacking in candor. E.R.M. was aware of the lawsuit and judgment because he had discussed them with the creditor at the time they were occurring. E.R.M. also listed him as an unsecured creditor on his bankruptcy petition filed in March 1990.
3(A). E.R.M. represented a bank while practicing law in the state of New York. During this representation, E.R.M. issued a restraining order on the checking accounts of a nursing home and the receiver of the nursing home. A court granted a motion to vacate the restraining order as being improperly issued against the receiver. The court entered a judgment for the receiver in 1989, jointly and severally, against E.R.M. and the bank in the amount of $15,516.02. The client ultimately satisfied the judgment in 1990.
3(B). E.R.M. represented an estate in New York. During this representation, E.R.M. failed to provide an accounting, failed to negotiate checks, and failed to pay bills of the decedent. A grievance was filed by the executrix of the estate which resulted in a letter of admonition by the State of New York Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District. The Committee found E.R.M. guilty of neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him in violation of New York's Code of Professional Responsibility. After explanation by E.R.M., the letter of admonition was changed to a letter of caution.
4. E.R.M. failed to pay a large portion of his court ordered child support payments between 1986 and 1989. This conduct resulted in the issuance of judgments against him for $36,112 in 1988 and $52,942 in 1989. The judgments remained outstanding until vacated as part of E.R.M.'s divorce judgment. In this matter, some of E.R.M.'s child support checks were also returned for insufficient funds. E.R.M. exhibited a disregard for his moral and legal obligations to his children, lack of financial responsibility, and a lack of respect for the court and legal system.
In the conclusion section of its report, the Board made the following observation:
Of particular significance to the Board is the applicant's admission, both in his Answer and in his testimony at the formal hearing, to having completely fabricated his testimony concerning the deed to the Grand Cayman house at the investigative hearing. The applicant's fabrication of this testimony at the investigative hearing convinces the Board of the applicant's lack of appreciation for the standards and ideals of the legal profession.
E.R.M. admitted several of the specifications, including that of giving false testimony about the deed to the Grand Cayman house. With respect to this matter, E.R.M. asserts that his misstatement was due to fatigue and confusion, and he points out that he corrected his misstatement in an amendment filed with the Board. He argues that the proven specifications are not disqualifying for admission to The Florida Bar, and he contends that the Board totally ignored his character witnesses.
At the outset, it is clear that there is competent and substantial evidence to support all of the Board's findings. The fact that he knowingly lied under oath at the investigatory hearing about having sent a signed deed to his wife is particularly serious. As recently noted in Florida Board of Bar Examiners re M.R.I., 623 So.2d 1178 (Fla. 1993), no qualification for membership in The Florida Bar is more important than truthfulness and candor. We agree with the Board that the proven specifications in the aggregate are sufficient to justify nonadmission to the Bar. We also find that the character evidence was insufficient to overcome E.R.M.'s improper conduct. We therefore approve the Board's findings and recommendation and deny E.R.M.'s petition for admission to The Florida Bar.
It is so ordered.
BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, SHAW, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.
Alert