Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Florida Board of Bar Examiners re M.B.S.
Citations: 955 So. 2d 504; 32 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 73; 2007 Fla. LEXIS 131; 2007 WL 268776Docket: No. SC05-1118
Court: Supreme Court of Florida; January 31, 2007; Florida; State Supreme Court
M.B.S. filed a motion for rehearing regarding his application for admission to The Florida Bar, which had been previously denied. The Court has jurisdiction over the case and has decided to reaffirm its initial ruling. M.B.S. submitted his application in March 2003, but a background investigation uncovered significant concerns about his character and fitness. Following an investigative hearing by the Florida Board of Bar Examiners in September 2004, four specifications were brought against him, detailing numerous instances of illegal and irresponsible behavior from 1990 to 2002. The specifications included: 1. **Unauthorized Use of a Driver’s License (January 1990)**: Charged for using a false license to enter a nightclub. 2. **Possession of Cannabis (November 1990)**: Involved in sharing marijuana; entered a no contest plea, with adjudication withheld. 3. **Attempted Drug Sale (November 1990)**: Pleaded guilty to selling Valium to an undercover officer, received probation, and was required to pay costs and perform community service. 4. **Credit Card Fraud (January 1992)**: Misappropriated a briefcase and used stolen credit cards to purchase gold; pleaded guilty to multiple charges, resulting in probation, restitution, and therapy. 5. **Disorderly Conduct and Resisting Arrest (November 1994)**: Pled no contest with adjudication withheld. 6. **Trespassing (May 1997)**: Arrested after refusing to leave a nightclub; pled no contest with adjudication withheld. 7. **Reckless Driving (March 2001)**: Found guilty after driving over 100 mph; sentenced to fines and community service. 8. **Disorderly Conduct (March 2002)**: Arrested following a fight at a nightclub, where police used mace to subdue him. Overall, the Court's reaffirmation of the denial of M.B.S.'s admission to The Florida Bar is based on these serious past offenses that reflect poorly on his character and fitness to practice law. M.B.S. was accused of submitting false information on his law school application and other legal documents. Specifically, he falsely claimed uninterrupted college attendance, misrepresented his roles as a campaign advisor and volunteer, and provided inaccurate employment history. He also misrepresented his criminal background, failing to update his application with new incidents. In a separate application to the Florida Supreme Court, M.B.S. falsely indicated no adverse background affecting his character. Additionally, he lied about his involvement in a 1992 arrest related to credit card fraud and theft, claiming his roommates were responsible and downplaying his actions. In reality, he had stolen a briefcase containing a credit card and attempted to purchase gold using it, leading to his arrest after multiple fraudulent purchases. M.B.S. pled guilty to several charges, including credit card fraud and grand theft, and denied serving jail time, although he had served three months following a probation revocation for a drug-related charge. A formal hearing on these allegations took place on May 20, 2005, where the Board substantiated all allegations and deemed them disqualifying. However, the Board also found sufficient evidence of M.B.S.'s rehabilitation, supported by five witnesses and numerous exhibits. They recommended conditional admission to The Florida Bar with a three-year probation, which M.B.S. accepted. Despite the Board's findings, the Court reviewed the record and rejected the conclusion of M.B.S.'s rehabilitation, ultimately denying his admission. Following this, M.B.S. requested a rehearing, which the Court granted, asking for a comprehensive explanation of the misconduct. M.B.S. focused on his rehabilitation efforts, while the Board elaborated on both the disqualifying conduct and the rehabilitation evidence that led to their recommendation. M.B.S. exhibited symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and developed alcohol dependence as a result of self-medication. He began attending Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) in January 2004 and achieved sobriety by April 12, 2004. M.B.S. executed a Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc. contract in August 2004 and consistently attended multiple AA meetings daily, motivated by a desire to help others rather than personal need. His involvement in community service was documented as substantial, with testimony from Sharon Bourassa, a Legal Aid director, affirming his volunteer contributions and potential for employment. However, the Board's review reaffirmed the denial of M.B.S.'s admission to The Florida Bar due to a history of criminal conduct and dishonesty on multiple applications submitted under oath. Specifically, M.B.S. fabricated jobs and misrepresented events to enhance his candidacy for law school and Bar admission. The Court noted M.B.S.'s failure to take full responsibility for his actions, attributing blame to his alcoholism and external factors. At the time of the hearing, he was receiving disability benefits for his OCD, which was in remission, but had not sought employment since September 2004. Financial support from his parents was also highlighted, as they funded his legal representation and character witnesses. The Court confirmed it would uphold the Board's findings when supported by substantial evidence, acknowledging its usual deference to the Board's credibility assessments while maintaining the right to independently review the factual basis for its recommendations. M.B.S.’s disqualifying conduct, characterized by a severe lack of truthfulness and minimal rehabilitation efforts, prompted the Court to reassess the Board's recommendation regarding his admission. The review revealed profound doubts about M.B.S.’s character and fitness, ultimately reinforcing the Court’s initial decision to deny his application. His lengthy history of dishonesty, including lying, stealing, legal violations, alcohol abuse, and violence, remains concerning, despite his two years of sobriety. M.B.S. demonstrated a pattern of deception throughout his applications for law school, a law school practice program, and the Bar, providing false information about his background to improve his chances of admission. Specifically, he fabricated employment and volunteer experiences on his law school application and misrepresented his criminal history on subsequent applications. His rationale for these lies indicates a calculated effort to conceal his past, rather than a genuine misunderstanding. The Court found his alcoholism insufficient to excuse his lack of honesty, asserting that such deceit undermines the foundational qualifications for Bar membership, which prioritize truthfulness and candor. Furthermore, the Court noted that the evidence of M.B.S.’s rehabilitation lacks substantial merit and that the conditional admission process is designed for those with a verified history of rehabilitative conduct, which M.B.S. has not demonstrated. Thus, the Court concluded that without established rehabilitation, the consideration for admission remains unwarranted. A clear connection must exist between disqualifying conduct, rehabilitation efforts, and future plans for conditional admission. Such admission does not substitute the necessity for a clear and convincing rehabilitation record. Prolonged disqualifying conduct demands a longer rehabilitation period to assure the Court of the applicant's ability to uphold professional standards. More serious misconduct imposes a greater burden to prove rehabilitation. For individuals with serious criminal histories or breaches of trust close to law school entry, a high standard of behavior must be demonstrated post-conduct to justify admission into a profession requiring utmost integrity. In assessing M.B.S.’s case, the Court finds that his extensive history of misconduct vastly overshadows his two years of sobriety and subsequent activities. The evidence of rehabilitation presented by M.B.S. must be exceptionally strong and sustained to counterbalance his past wrongdoings. His recent serious infractions, including dishonesty during law school admission and Court applications, raise significant doubts about the sincerity of his claimed transformation. M.B.S. began attending Alcoholics Anonymous in January 2004, achieved sobriety in April 2004, and entered a recovery contract in August 2004, shortly before formal proceedings. His claims of newfound control over his OCD and alcoholism, made just months before hearings, lack convincing support, leading the Court to question whether this is a genuine turning point or merely a tactic for admission. Additionally, M.B.S.'s lack of accountability for his past actions, including his misleading application responses, further undermines his credibility. His rationale for lying—attributing it to the wording of the application—contradicts the essential transparency required for bar admission, indicating he has not fully accepted responsibility for his conduct. M.B.S. attributed his misconduct to 'character defects' that he claimed diminished when he ceased drinking. However, there was no indication of intoxication or unawareness when he made false statements under oath, suggesting a lack of genuine recognition of his errors. Despite believing he is qualified to serve as an attorney, M.B.S. remains financially dependent on his parents at thirty-four years old. His primary income comes from disability benefits since 1992, and although his OCD was in remission due to medication, he had not sought employment. His parents financially supported his legal expenses and character witnesses for the hearing. The court emphasized the need for lawyers to demonstrate fitness and rehabilitation before admission to the Bar, expressing concerns that M.B.S. has not shown a constructive role in society. Consequently, the court denied M.B.S.'s application for admission for two years, requiring him to present clear evidence of sustained sobriety and further rehabilitation upon reapplication. The court aims to prevent the admission of unsuitable candidates to protect the public and the profession. The decision was supported by several justices, while one justice dissented. M.B.S.'s history includes prior legal troubles, including using a false ID, drug charges, theft, and reckless driving, alongside inconsistencies in his statements regarding his religious conversion.