Florida Board of Bar Examiners

Petitioner was admitted to the Florida Bar in 1955 and disbarred in 1986 for personal use of clients legal funds and neglect of a legal matter. He applied for readmission in 1992.



At hearing before the board the following specifications were proven: that he was disbarred based on three incidents in which he received money on behalf of a client but failed to forward the money to the client; that he was arrested for second degree grand theft based on his failure to deliver funds to a client; that he had outstanding judments from the mid 1980′s to accountants, a foundation, a bank, a doctor, and the IRS; that his driver’s license was suspended for failure ti pay a speeding ticket and that is was not reported on his bar application. At the hearing, the applicant stated he made a mistake and negligently took the money but did not steal. The board found that J.C.B.’s application and testimony at the hearing were false, misleading, or lacking in candor and recommended that his admission be denied.

Merely showing that and 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. The requirement for positive action is appropriate for applicants for admission to the bar because service to one’s community is an implied obligation of members of the bar.

The court pointed out that the applicant had argued against the weight of the record that he was marely grossly negligent when he used client funds for his own use. He further argued that he was not financially irresponsible even though he had failed to attempt to satisfy his outsanding debts and continued to work for $150 a week when he had other higher-paying job opportunities.

The court focused on the rehabilitation area and noted that an applicant who affirmatively asserts rehabilitation from prior conduct must show rehabilitation by such thing as occupation, religion, community, or civic service.

J.C.B. stated he held a job and attended church but he had not demonstrated the community involvement that the rule required. His promise to perform pro bono work if readmitted was not enough to show present rehabilitation. The court was also concerned that J.C.B.’s character witnesses did not know why he was disbarred.

The court concluded that upon a showing of rehabilitation J.C.B. may reapply for admission after two years from the date of the board’s adverse recommendation. His petition for readmission was denied.