Florida Board of Bar Examiners

645 So. 2d 972, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 597, 1994 Fla. LEXIS 1814, 1994 WL 643751
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedNovember 17, 1994
DocketNo. 83122
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 645 So. 2d 972 (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, 645 So. 2d 972, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 597, 1994 Fla. LEXIS 1814, 1994 WL 643751 (Fla. 1994).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Florida Board of Bar Examiners (the Board) petitions this Court to amend or adopt Rules Relating to Admissions to the Bar. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 15 of the Florida Constitution.

The Board has petitioned to create or amend these rules: article I, section 3.a. (qualifications for Florida Board of Bar Examiners); article I, section 4 (Florida Board of Bar Examiners); article I, sections 7.a.-c. (Board meetings and hearings); article I, section 14.f. (sanctions for violating confidentiality requirements); article III, section 2.h. (ineligibility of convicted felon to apply for Bar admission); article III, section 2.i. (ineligibility of probationer to apply for Bar admission until probation completed); article III, section 3.a. (background investigation); article III, section 3.c. (filing of specifications); article III, section 3.f. (formal hearings on specifications); article III, section 4.a. (petition for reconsideration); article IV, section l.b. (applications); article IV, section 2.c. (termination of application) (relocated from article VI, section 9); article IV, section 5.b. (filing of application for admission; ethics provisions including exemptions from Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam); article IV, section 8 (filing supplement of exemption from MPRE); article V (schedule of fees) (introductory clause); article VI, section 1 (examinations); article VI, section 3.b. (examinations); article VI, section 3.c. (examinations); article VI, section 7.e. (grading of MPRE); article VI, section 9.a.-b. (testing); article VI, section 9.c. (termination of application) (relocated to article IV, section 2.c.); and article VII, section 1 (certification to the Supreme Court and admission to The Florida Bar).

Some of the proposed amendments simply involve technical changes, and others are self-explanatory. We discuss only two proposals.

Article III, section S.c. and f. — Proposal for Conditional Admission for Applicants with Serious Financial Problems

Because of an increasing number of applicants to The Florida Bar with significant financial problems, the Board urges us to amend the rules to expand the conditional admissions program to these applicants.1 We decline to do so.

This Court first approved conditional admissions in 1986 for applicants with drug, alcohol, or psychological problems. In re Petition of Fla. Bd. of Bar Examiners, 498 [974]*974So.2d 914 (Fla.1986). The purpose of conditional admissions is to help rehabilitate these new admittees. The Board estimates that approximately 125 people have been conditionally admitted since 1986.

We do not think conditional admission is appropriate for applicants with serious financial problems. Debt is not an illness or a disease. It is not clear that the rehabilitative function of conditional admissions would work for those applicants with financial problems. To allow conditional admission for financial difficulties would render the supervising agency into little more than a credit bureau. In addition, expanding conditional admissions would add more people to the program and would create more regulatory problems for the agency that supervises these admittees.

We believe the Board’s current practice is the best way to handle applicants with financial problems. Applicants who have fraudulently incurred or postponed the payment of debt typically are required to prove rehabilitation before they are admitted. But because some applicants legitimately incur debt to finance their legal education, we have recognized that debt alone is not a bar to admission. See Florida Bd. of Bar Examiners re S.M.D., 609 So.2d 1309 (Fla.1992).

In addition, over the last five years the Board has used a “credit string” that has been used for about thirty-five applicants whose debts are neither clearly legitimate nor fraudulent. According to the Board’s counsel, applicants must acknowledge their debts and swear to repay them. They are required to report back to the Board at predetermined intervals for one year. Under the Board’s rules, should an applicant fail to adhere to the sworn document, he or she may be investigated for making material misstatements.2

To expand the “credit string” and grant conditional admission to applicants with serious financial problems creates the risk of giving creditors leverage over a Bar applicant for an indefinite length of time. We believe the better practice is for the Board to continue to distinguish between someone i^ho cannot properly discharge his or her financial duties from someone who legitimately incurred debt or is simply poor. If an applicant presents a threat to the public because of financial difficulties, he or she should not be admitted to the Bar. Otherwise, the Bar can monitor attorneys and take action if financial problems interfere with the ability to ethically represent clients. The Board should continue to use the “credit string” sparingly.

Because we decline to adopt this proposed rule, we express no opinion on whether the Board or the Bar is the appropriate agency to monitor attorneys admitted under this proposal.

Article IV, section 5.b.(8), (9), (10) — Ethics Testing3

We adopt the Board’s proposal requiring an applicant to sign an affidavit attesting that he or she has read Chapter 4, Rules of Professional Conduct, and Chapter 5, Rules Regulating Trust Accounts, of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. We decline to adopt the Board’s proposal to eliminate the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE) for certain Bar applicants.4

[975]*975An applicant should be required to pass a separate ethics examination to gain admission to The Florida Bar. The ethics exam now given is the MPRE. This national exam consists of fifty multiple-choice questions that must be answered in a two-hour, five-minute period. The MPRE is administered three times per year at test sites throughout the country. Florida Bar applicants must attain a scaled score of seventy to pass the exam.

The Board contends that the MPRE has outlived its usefulness because it tests only American Bar Association provisions and not Florida rules. Despite this shortcoming, we are not prepared to say that the examination serves no purpose and should be eliminated.

In urging us to eliminate the MPRE, the Board points out that it has recently adopted a policy of including ethics questions on every Bar examination. But the Board acknowledges that, despite its policy, an applicant can miss the ethics questions and still pass the Bar exam. We do not think this alone puts sufficient emphasis on ethical rules, although we encourage the Board to continue to include ethics questions on the Florida section of the bar exam.

Because of the Board’s legitimate concern that the MPRE does not test Florida’s ethics rules, we suggest that the Board consider developing its own, separate ethics exam. At oral argument, counsel for the Board indicated that the Board had not determined the feasibility of developing such an exam. If the Board does develop a separate ethics exam, the Court would substitute that exam for the MPRE requirement that now exists. Until that time, Florida applicants will be required to take and pass the MPRE.

Accordingly, we amend and adopt the rules as reflected in the Appendix to this opinion.5

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

Related

Lafitte-Nesom v. Christus Schumpert Highland
188 So. 3d 1100 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2016)
Florida Bd. of Bar Examiners Ex Rel. Chavez
894 So. 2d 1 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2005)
In re Hyland
663 A.2d 1309 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
645 So. 2d 972, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 597, 1994 Fla. LEXIS 1814, 1994 WL 643751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-board-of-bar-examiners-fla-1994.