Florida Board of Bar Examiners

676 So. 2d 372, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 122, 1996 Fla. LEXIS 442, 1996 WL 108536
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedMarch 14, 1996
DocketNo. 85938
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 676 So. 2d 372 (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, 676 So. 2d 372, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 122, 1996 Fla. LEXIS 442, 1996 WL 108536 (Fla. 1996).

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. We approve the proposed amendments as set forth in the attached appendix.

The Board has petitioned to create or amend these rules: article I, section 14 (authorizing the release to applicants of copies of documents submitted to the Board without the consent of the submitting party if the document would be independently available to the requesting applicant); article II, sections 1-5, (increasing fees applicable to student registrants); article III, section l.a. (creating administrative fee for the release of bar examination scores following impoundment by the Court); article III, section 2.f. (clarifying that provision also applies to individuals who resigned pending disciplinary proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction); article III, section 3.a., e. (establishing administrative fees for investigative and formal hearings); article III, section 4.a., d. (increasing fee applicable to petition for reconsideration and establishing fee in rehabilitation eases in lieu of current practice of requiring costs deposit); article IV, section 1. (increasing late fee for bar applications filed in a defective condition and reducing time to file bar application after successful completion of bar examination); article IV, section 2.a. (increasing fee when filing an updated bar application is required); article IV, section 3 (replacing current language of “such other registration fee” with specific amount of fee to accompany initial application); article IV, section 4 (creating multiple fee schedule for out-of-state lawyers seeking admission to the bar); article IV, sections 5.b. and 8 (reducing time to file bar application after successful completion of the bar examination); article IV, section 7.a., b. (increasing the fees applicable to postponement of applicant’s submission to bar examination); article IV, sections 12 and 13, and article V, section 15 (consolidating provisions on petitions filed by applicants with the Board and extending time for seeking Court review of Board’s rulings); article V (increasing all fees assessed by the Board); article VI, sections 5 and 6 (increasing the fees applicable to untimely applications for admission to the bar examination and to applicants desiring to repeat any part of the examination); and article VI, section 9.b. (reducing time to file bar application after successful completion of the bar examination).

[374]*374The proposed amendments were published in The Florida Bar News on July 15, 1995, with an invitation for comments. Attorneys Charles A. Stampelos and Richard C. McFarlain filed a comment in response to the proposed amendment of article I, section 14 relating to the release of documents. Stampelos and McFarlain argue that, in light of article I, section 24 of the Florida Constitution,1 the proposed amendment does not go far enough. They contend that all records in the possession of the Board should be open for inspection by the applicant and the public. We do not agree.

While article I, section 24 of the Florida Constitution affords access to public records of the judicial branch, it also provides that “[r]ules of court that are in effect on the date of adoption of this section that limit access to records shall remain in effect until they are repealed.” Art. I, § 24(d), Fla. Const. Before this constitutional provision received voter approval in the November 1992 election, this Court adopted Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.051, concerning public access to judicial records. Amendments to Fla.R.Jud.Admin.—Public Access to Judicial Records, 608 So.2d 472 (Fla.1992) [hereinafter Public Access]. The rule specifically provides that “all court records presently deemed to be confidential by court rule, including the Rules for Admission to the Bar” shall be confidential and therefore exempt from public access under the constitutional provision. Fla.R.Jud.Admin. 2.051(c)(8).

At the time that the Court adopted rule 2.051, we denied the requests of several individuals and groups that we open even more judicial records to public access. Public Access, 608 So.2d at 473. We explained that while the constitutional provision prohibits the Court from enacting a new rule that would close any records, we still have “flexibility to open such additional records in the future as may be in the best interest of the public and the judicial system.” Id. The Court refused to open other judicial records where we were “unsure whether or not the opening of these additional records could have the effect of damaging or disrupting the judicial system.” Id.

We exercise the same restraint in the instant case. We have previously expressed our concern that “unless the [BJoard’s investigative files are held in confidence, many of those from whom the [Bjoard seeks information concerning applicants would be unwilling to candidly respond.” Florida Bd. of Bar Examiners re Rules of the Supreme Court Relating to Admissions to the Bar, 581 So.2d 895, 897 (Fla.1991). Here, the Board has only proposed that documents filed on an applicant’s behalf and which would be independently available to the applicant be accessible to the applicant without consent of the party submitting them. Documents not otherwise available to an applicant will still only be released with the written consent of the submitting party. Other documents in the possession of the Board shall remain confidential under the amended rule, and shall only be available to an applicant if tendered to the Board at an investigative or formal hearing. This is consistent with our prior interpretation of article I, section 14, id., and our previous determination that “[ljittle, if anything, would be gained from such a rule [making public the record of an applicant], and much could be lost.” Florida Bd. of Bar Examiners re Amendment to Rules Relating to Admission to the Bar, 451 So.2d 1384, 1384 (Fla.1984).

McFarlain also filed an objection to the change of fees proposed in article IV, section 4.e. This provision would increase the application fees from $2100 to $5000 for those applicants seeking readmission after disbarment or resignation pending diseiplin-[375]*375ary proceedings. McFarlain states no reason for his opposition to this fee increase. We conclude that the fee increase is justified by the expenses incurred by the Board when a former lawyer applies for readmission to the Bar. While the applicant seeking readmission bears the heavy burden of establishing rehabilitation, Florida Bd. of Bar Examiners re J.C.B., 655 So.2d 79, 80-81 (Fla.1995), the Board still must conduct an investigation and make a determination regarding the applicant’s character, fitness, and rehabilitation. See Fla.Bar Admiss.R., art. Ill, § 3.a. We find the Board’s other proposals to establish or increase fees similarly justified by the expenses incurred in each circumstance.

Accordingly, we amend and adopt the rules as reflected in the Appendix to this opinion. Underscoring indicates new language; strike-through type indicates deletions. The Board’s rationale is included only for explanation and guidance and is not adopted as an official part of the rules. These rules shall take effect upon the release of this opinion. The fees shall be applicable to all applications postmarked after April 1, 1996.

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

Related

Harrington v. Veritext, LLC
S.D. Florida, 2024
Lamb v. State Board of Law Examiners
2010 ND 11 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2010)
Heinle v. Heinle
2010 ND 5 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2010)
Richardson v. State
875 So. 2d 673 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
676 So. 2d 372, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 122, 1996 Fla. LEXIS 442, 1996 WL 108536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-board-of-bar-examiners-fla-1996.