Amendments to the Rules of the Supreme Court Relating to Admissions to the Bar

695 So. 2d 312, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 308, 1997 Fla. LEXIS 730, 1997 WL 297683
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJune 5, 1997
DocketNo. 89187
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 695 So. 2d 312 (Amendments to the Rules of the Supreme Court Relating to Admissions to the Bar) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Amendments to the Rules of the Supreme Court Relating to Admissions to the Bar, 695 So. 2d 312, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 308, 1997 Fla. LEXIS 730, 1997 WL 297683 (Fla. 1997).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Florida Board of Bar Examiners petitions this Court to consider amendments to the Rules Relating to Admissions to the Bar. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article Y, section 15 of the Florida Constitution. We approve the proposed amendments as set forth in the attached appendix.

The Board seeks approval of the following administrative changes related to reorganization of the rules: to rename the rules “Rules of Admission to The Florida Bar”; to replace the current configuration of seven articles with five rules; and to eliminate current separate articles on Registration of Law Students (Article II) and Schedule of Fees (Article V) and incorporate these provisions into the appropriate provisions of the proposed rules. The Board also seeks approval of a number of substantive changes and deletions, some of which are discussed in detail below.

A notice of the proposed rule changes was published in The Florida Bar News on November 15, 1996. The proposed rules were placed on the Court’s Internet location. The deadlines for comments to be filed with the Court was December 16,1996.

The only comment was filed by Bar member Gerald T. Bennett, who asserts that the rules relating to formal hearings and appeals from decisions of the Board do not provide applicants with adequate due process protections and do not provide this Court with a sufficient record on which to review the Board’s action. Specifically, Bennett argues that proposed rules 3-23 and 3-23.1 are deficient in the following ways: they do not limit the evidence that the Board may consider in assessing the fitness of an applicant to evidence produced at the formal hearing; do not specify what must be contained in “Specifications” filed against an applicant; do not provide for prehearing discovery; and do not guarantee an applicant the right to be heard or be present at the formal hearing or to be represented by counsel.

While the rules may not speak directly to these procedural safeguards specified by Bennett, we note that applicants are afforded these due process rights. See Florida Bd. of Bar Exam’rs Re Interpretation of Article I, Section 14d, 581 So.2d 895, 897 (Fla.1991) (recommendation that applicant’s admission be denied can only be based on record evidence produced at formal adversary hearing held in response to filing of specifications; applicant is entitled to representation by counsel, cross-examination of witnesses, presentation of witnesses and evidence on applicant’s behalf, access to Board’s subpoena powers, timely release of witness and exhibit lists by board attorney, disclosure of any exculpatory information in Board’s possession, and disclosure of any prior statement of individual appearing on Board’s witness list). Moreover, every set of specifications served upon a Bar applicant includes an attachment entitled “Procedures for formal hearings before the Florida Board of Bar Examiners,” which describes in detail the rights of an applicant appearing for a formal hearing. These rights include all of the procedural safeguards noted by Bennett. Thus, we find that Bennett’s concerns are addressed in practice. However, we ask the Board to review the matter at its next policy session to determine whether some reference to its formal hearing procedures should be incorporated in the rules.

Bennett also requests that the administrative fee assessed for formal hearings be refunded to the applicant if the specifications are found to be unsubstantiated. We find such a refund to be unwarranted. The Board does not proceed haphazardly to a formal hearing. Before specifications are filed against an applicant, the Board conducts a thorough investigation and holds an informal hearing. The Board only conducts a formal hearing in those cases where the applicant’s fitness and character are in question. The administrative fee paid by the applicant represents only a portion of the actual cost of conducting a formal hearing. See Florida Bd. of Bar Exam’rs Re Amendments to the Rules, 676 So.2d 372, 381 (Fla. [314]*3141996). This Court approved the administrative fee in 1996 in response to the burgeoning number of formal hearings — more than a 100 percent increase in a five-year period — and the costs associated with that increase. Id. at 391-92. Thus, the Board’s expenditures are more fairly apportioned to those applicants whose background investigations have induced the increased costs. Even where an applicant is admitted to the Bar after the formal hearing due to mitigating circumstances or proof of rehabilitation, the formal hearing was still necessary and the associated costs have already been incurred. Thus, we will not authorize a refund of the administrative fee.

Bennett also expresses concerns about proposed rule 3-10, which addresses appeals to this Court from a decision of the Board. Bennett contends that the Board considers evidence other than that submitted at the formal hearing, resulting in an inadequate record on appeal. However, as discussed above, only evidence produced at the formal hearing may be considered by the Board in rendering its decision. See Florida Bd. of Bar Exam’rs, 581 So.2d at 897. Thus, there is no inadequacy in the record before this Court on appeal.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Florida Board of Bar Examiners Re Massachusetts School of Law
705 So. 2d 898 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1998)
In re C.R.R.
144 P.R. Dec. 365 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1997)
Allen v. City of Shreveport
626 So. 2d 854 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
695 So. 2d 312, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 308, 1997 Fla. LEXIS 730, 1997 WL 297683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amendments-to-the-rules-of-the-supreme-court-relating-to-admissions-to-the-fla-1997.