In re P.H.M.T.

Supreme Court of Georgia

In re P.H.M.T.

524 S.E.2d 729, 272 Ga. 19, 2000 Fulton County D. Rep. 265, 2000 Ga. LEXIS 29

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 24, 2000

DocketS00A0716

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 524 S.E.2d 729 (In re P.H.M.T.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re P.H.M.T., 524 S.E.2d 729, 272 Ga. 19, 2000 Fulton County D. Rep. 265, 2000 Ga. LEXIS 29 (Ga. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Per curiam.

In this case, the Board to Determine Fitness of Bar Applicants (the “Board”) initially granted the applicant, P.H.M.T., a temporary certification of fitness to practice law. The Board, however, subsequently rescinded its temporary certification, and entered a tentative order denying P.H.M.T.’s application for certification of fitness.¹ Pursuant to Part A, Section 8 (a) of the Rules Governing Admission to the Practice of Law, P.H.M.T. requested a formal hearing on his application for certification. After the hearing, the hearing officer recommended that P.H.M.T. not be certified to practice law based upon his current application. The hearing officer based his recommendation upon his findings that P.H.M.T. had exhibited a lack of candor by giving incorrect and incomplete answers on his application and on other occasions and by engaging in one act of the unauthorized practice of law. The Board adopted the hearing officer’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and denied P.H.M.T.’s application. P.H.M.T. now appeals.

In proceedings on applications for certification, the applicant bears the burden to establish that he has the requisite character and [20]*20moral fitness to practice law.² Moreover, “[i]f there is any evidence to support the Board’s decision, it will be upheld on appeal.”³ Here, the Board adopted the hearing officer’s findings that P.H.M.T. exhibited a lack of candor by giving incorrect and incomplete answers on his application and on other occasions and by engaging in one act of the unauthorized practice of law. The record supports these findings, and we therefore conclude that we must affirm the Board’s denial of P.H.M.T.’s application for certification. Moreover, it should be noted that, although an applicant for fitness has thirty days in which to file an appeal from the denial of his application, P.H.M.T. filed his appeal from the Board’s denial of his application one month and twenty-four days after the Board sent its letter notifying P.H.M.T. of the denial. In this same vein, it should also be noted that, although P.H.M.T. obtained an extension of about three weeks in which to file his brief in support of his appeal, he did not file the brief until five weeks after the extended due date.

Decided January 24, 2000. P.H.M.T., pro se. Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Rebecca S. Mick, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Decision affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Per curiam.

In this case, the Board to Determine Fitness of Bar Applicants (the “Board”) initially granted the applicant, P.H.M.T., a temporary certification of fitness to practice law. The Board, however, subsequently rescinded its temporary certification, and entered a tentative order denying P.H.M.T.’s application for certification of fitness.¹ Pursuant to Part A, Section 8 (a) of the Rules Governing Admission to the Practice of Law, P.H.M.T. requested a formal hearing on his application for certification. After the hearing, the hearing officer recommended that P.H.M.T. not be certified to practice law based upon his current application. The hearing officer based his recommendation upon his findings that P.H.M.T. had exhibited a lack of candor by giving incorrect and incomplete answers on his application and on other occasions and by engaging in one act of the unauthorized practice of law. The Board adopted the hearing officer’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and denied P.H.M.T.’s application. P.H.M.T. now appeals.

In proceedings on applications for certification, the applicant bears the burden to establish that he has the requisite character and [20]*20moral fitness to practice law.² Moreover, “[i]f there is any evidence to support the Board’s decision, it will be upheld on appeal.”³ Here, the Board adopted the hearing officer’s findings that P.H.M.T. exhibited a lack of candor by giving incorrect and incomplete answers on his application and on other occasions and by engaging in one act of the unauthorized practice of law. The record supports these findings, and we therefore conclude that we must affirm the Board’s denial of P.H.M.T.’s application for certification. Moreover, it should be noted that, although an applicant for fitness has thirty days in which to file an appeal from the denial of his application, P.H.M.T. filed his appeal from the Board’s denial of his application one month and twenty-four days after the Board sent its letter notifying P.H.M.T. of the denial. In this same vein, it should also be noted that, although P.H.M.T. obtained an extension of about three weeks in which to file his brief in support of his appeal, he did not file the brief until five weeks after the extended due date.

Decided January 24, 2000. P.H.M.T., pro se. Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Rebecca S. Mick, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Decision affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

524 S.E.2d 729, 272 Ga. 19, 2000 Fulton County D. Rep. 265, 2000 Ga. LEXIS 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-phmt-ga-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack