Walter Javier Arrazola Mendivil v. the Florida Bar

Opinion

Supreme Court of Florida THURSDAY, MAY 21, 2026

Walter Javier Arrazola SC2026-0210 Mendivil, Petitioner(s) v.

The Florida Bar, Respondent(s)

Because Petitioner has failed to show a clear legal right to the

relief requested, he is not entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly,

the petition for writ of mandamus is hereby denied. See Huffman v.

State, 813 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla. 2000). No motion for rehearing will

be considered.

MUÑIZ, C.J., and LABARGA, COURIEL, GROSSHANS, FRANCIS, and SASSO, JJ., concur. TANENBAUM, J., concurs with an opinion.

TANENBAUM, J., concurring.

It is true that the petitioner has failed facially to satisfy the

elements necessary to demonstrate an entitlement to mandamus.

Then again, petitioning for an extraordinary writ against The Florida

Bar is, frankly, strange. To do so, essentially, is to ask this court to CASE NO.: SC2026-0210 Page Two

issue an extraordinary writ to itself. The Florida Bar is a mere

agency of this court, and its officers act only under this court’s

authority. See Fla. Bar v. McCain, 330 So. 2d 712, 714 (Fla. 1976)

(noting that the Bar is not “an independent agent,” so when dealing

with the Bar’s disciplinary powers, “we are actually talking about

our own authority”). Moreover, licensing and certifications are

matters of privilege, not of right; mandamus could not be an

appropriate writ in this context anyway.

We can ensure the Bar’s compliance with our own internal

rules, within our discretion, by simple order, when appropriate. Cf.

In re Proposed Disciplinary Action by Fla. Bar Against Cir. Judge,

103 So. 2d 632, 635 (Fla. 1958) (issuing “cease and desist” order to

the Bar’s Board of Governors). The petitioner has not shown a lack

of compliance warranting our involvement.

A True Copy Test:

SC2026-0210 5/21/2026

SC2026-0210 5/21/2026 CASE NO.: SC2026-0210 Page Three

SO

Served:

JOSHUA E. DOYLE WALTER JAVIER ARRAZOLA MENDIVIL