Florida Board of Bar Examiners

603 So. 2d 1160, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 333, 1992 Fla. LEXIS 1040, 1992 WL 117284
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJune 4, 1992
DocketNos. 78479, 79083
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 603 So. 2d 1160 (Florida Board of Bar Examiners) 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
Florida Board of Bar Examiners, 603 So. 2d 1160, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 333, 1992 Fla. LEXIS 1040, 1992 WL 117284 (Fla. 1992).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Florida Board of Bar Examiners filed a petition for approval of certain amendments to the Rules of the Supreme Court Relating to Admissions to the Bar. One of the proposals sought to amend article III, section l.a., by adding provisions for the review of an unfavorable evaluation of an applicant’s educational credentials submitted in lieu of the requirement of an academic Bachelor’s Degree. In the meantime, Gerald T. Bennett, Esquire, submitted a proposal to amend article III to provide that an applicant who has received a professional law degree from a law school accredited by the Association of American Law Schools shall be deemed to have obtained the equivalent of an undergraduate degree from an accredited educational institution. Because both petitions were directed to the same rule, we asked the Board of Bar Examiners to respond to the merits of Professor Bennett’s proposal. The Bar Examiners filed a supplement to their petition in which they accepted certain of Professor Bennett’s recommendations but rejected his suggestion that a degree from an accredited law school would suffice for an appropriate undergraduate degree.

Upon consideration, the Court has concluded to dispense with the strict requirement of an undergraduate degree. We note that the majority of 'other states do not have such a requirement, and we conclude that the disputes over credentials evaluations are expensive, time-consuming, and unnecessary. The Court has determined that the sole educational requirement of an applicant should be graduation with a J.D. or LL.B. degree from a law school approved by the American Bar Association. The vast majority of such graduates will have obtained satisfactory undergraduate degrees, and we are confident that approved law schools will only permit the admission of those without such undergraduate degrees in worthy cases. On the other hand, we do not agree with Professor Bennett’s suggestion that an applicant could qualify through a credentials evaluation without an approved law school degree.

As a consequence of our decision, we have modified the proposed amendment to article III, section l.a. and eliminated the proposed amendment to article V, section 11, which would have established a fee for review of an unfavorable credentials evaluation. In all other respects, we approve the petition of the Bar Examiners. The [1161]*1161rules as amended are set forth in the appendix to this opinion. The rationale submitted by the Bar Examiners for the proposed amendment is set forth after each rule, excepting article III, section l.a. These amendments shall become effective when this opinion becomes final.

It is so ordered.

SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, barkett, grimes, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.

APPENDIX

[Additions are underlined; deletions are struck through.]

Article I, Section 14 as it will appear:

SECTION 14. All information maintained by the Board in the discharge of those responsibilities delegated to it by the Supreme Court of Florida shall be confidential except as provided by these Rules or otherwise authorized by the Court. All matters including, but not limited to, registrant and applicant files, investigative reports, examination material and interoffice memoranda shall be the property of the Supreme Court of Florida and the Board shall serve as custodian of all such records.

The Board is authorized to disclose the following information relating to an individual registrant, applicant or member of The Florida Bar, absent specific instructions from the Court to the contrary, in the following situations:

a. The name, date of birth, Social Security number and date of application for placement in a national data bank operated by or on behalf of the National Conference of Bar Examiners.

b. Upon written request from The Florida Bar for information relating to disciplinary proceedings, reinstatement proceedings or unauthorized practice of law investigations, provided, however, that information received by the Board under the specific agreement of confidentiality or otherwise restricted by law shall not be disclosed.

c. Upon written request from the National Conference of Bar Examiners or from foreign bar admitting agencies, foreign bar associations, or other similar agencies, when accompanied by an authorization and release duly executed by the person about whom such information is sought, provided, however, that information received by the Board under a specific agreement of confidentiality or otherwise restricted by law shall not be disclosed.

d. Upon written request from registrants or applicants for copies of documents previously filed by them or on their behalf with the Board with the written consent of the party submitting such documents, and copies of any documents or exhibits tendered- to the Board formally introduced into the record at an investigative or formal hearing before the Board and the transcript of such hearings.

e. Upon service of a subpoena issued by a Federal or Florida Grand Jury, or Florida State Attorney only in connection with a felony investigation, provided, however, that information otherwise restricted by law shall not be disclosed.

RATIONALE:

The proposed rule amendment would clarify the current language regarding the release of information to a bar applicant in accordance with the supreme court’s recent opinion in Florida Board of Bar Examiners re Interpretation of Article I, Section 14,d. of the Rules of the Supreme Court Relating to Admissions to the Bar, 581 So.2d 895 (Fla.1991). In that decision, the supreme court affirmed the Board’s position that the phrase “tendered to the Board” is restricted to those documents or exhibits formally introduced into the record at the hearing. Article III, Section l.a. as it will appear:

Section 1. No applicant shall be admitted to the General Bar Examination unless he or she furnishes to the Board:

a, — Satisfactory evidence that the applicant has received an academic Bachelors Degree granted on a basis-of a four-year period of-study in a college or university on the approved list of any--one of the following regional accrediting associations:

(1) New — England—Association—of Schools and Colleges?

[1162]*1162(2) Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools/Commission on Higher Education)

(3) North Central Association of Colleges and Schools;

(4) Southern Association of Colleges and Schools — Commission on Colleges;

(5) Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges;

(6) Western Association of Schools-and Colleges — Accrediting—Commission—for Senior Collegesr

The academic-Bachelor’s Degree refer-r-ed to above must have been-conferred at a time when suGh-college or university--was accredited or within 12 months of such accreditation. — Otherwise, such applicant shall obtain a determination at the cost of the applicant by- a credentials evaluation service or other professionals approved by the Board that the applicant's education is the equivalent of a Bachelor’s Degree awarded-by an accredited-institution.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
603 So. 2d 1160, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 333, 1992 Fla. LEXIS 1040, 1992 WL 117284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-board-of-bar-examiners-fla-1992.