FLORIDA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS RE: J.J.T.
No. SC96477
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
761 So. 2d 1094;
2000 Fla. LEXIS 1232;
25 Fla. L. Weekly S 481
June 15, 2000, Decided
DISPOSITION:
[**1] Affirmed.
COUNSEL: Kathryn E. Ressel, Executive Director, and Thomas A. Pobjecky, General
Counsel, Tallahassee, Florida, for Petitioner.
Brion Blackwelder, Hollywood, Florida, for Respondent.
JUDGES: HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ.,
concur.
OPINION:
[*1095] Original Proceeding - Florida Board of Bar Examiners.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner J.J.T., a
disbarred attorney, asks this Court to review the
recommendation of the Florida Board of Bar Examiners that he not be
readmitted to The Florida Bar. We have jurisdiction. See Art. V,
§ 15, Fla. Const. We affirm the Board's
recommendation and deny J.J.T.
readmission to the bar at this time.
In 1992, J.J.T. was
disbarred after pleading guilty to charges of
unlawful compensation and perjury in an official proceeding. The charges stemmed from J.J.T.'s
request for and acceptance of $ 2500 from a client J.J.T. represented as a
special public defender and from his denial of wrongdoing when questioned under
oath by law enforcement officials. In 1997, J.J.T. filed an application seeking
readmission to The Florida Bar. Following
[**2] an investigative hearing, the Board served formal
specifications against him. The
specifications were based solely on his
prior discipline n1 and
disbarment. J.J.T. has admitted all of the allegations contained in the
specifications, reducing the issues in this case to an analysis of his asserted
rehabilitation.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n1 J.J.T. received a private
reprimand in 1984 for an improper advance to a client or a friend of a client, and he
received a public
reprimand in 1988 for (1) failing to appear at a hearing on a motion for
summary judgment on behalf of a client, failing to inform the client of the resulting order of
summary judgment against the client, and failing to move to set aside the order; and (2)
failing to prepare for and attend a sentencing hearing on behalf of a client
because he felt the client was not abiding by the fee agreement and filing a
motion to withdraw without notifying his client. In addition to the public
reprimand, J.J.T. was placed on
probation and was required to meet monthly with a supervising attorney and pass an
ethics course at an ABA-approved law school.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[**3]
During the
formal hearing on
rehabilitation, J.J.T. testified on his own behalf, called two character witnesses, and
offered fifteen exhibits
consisting of documents related to his divorce, literature regarding a
nonprofit corporation for which he had been working, and character letters and
affidavits. Essentially, the Board found that J.J.T. had not presented
clear and convincing evidence of several elements of
rehabilitation as set forth in Rule 3-13 of the Rules of the Supreme Court Relating to
Admissions to the Bar. Specifically, the Board found that he had not met the
"positive action" requirement of
rehabilitation n2 and had not sufficiently proven his desire and intent to conduct himself in
an
exemplary fashion in the future. n3 Accordingly,
[*1096] the Board recommended that J.J.T. not be
readmitted to The Florida Bar at this
time.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n2 Fla. Bar Admiss. R. 3-13(g).
n3 Fla. Bar Admiss. R. 3-13(e).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
We agree with the Board that J.J.T. has not shown he is presently qualified for
readmission to The Florida Bar.
[**4] As this Court has observed,
"disbarment alone is disqualifying unless [the applicant] can show
clear and convincing evidence of
rehabilitation,"
Florida Bd. of Bar Exam'rs re L.H.H., 660 So. 2d 1046, 1048 (Fla. 1995), and
disbarred attorneys should be
readmitted only if they can meet this
"heavy burden."
Florida Bd. of Bar Exam'rs re J.C.B., 655 So. 2d 79, 80 (Fla. 1995). Additionally, in evaluating an applicant's showing of
rehabilitation, the nature of the past
misconduct cannot be
disregarded. See
Florida Bd. of Bar Exam'rs re W.H.V.D., 653 So. 2d 386, 388 (Fla. 1995). The
more serious the
misconduct, the greater the showing of
rehabilitation that will be required.
Here, J.J.T.'s
misconduct was extremely serious. J.J.T. was publicly reprimanded in 1988 by the
then-president of The Florida Bar for serious client neglect. The president
admonished him that he must never again conduct himself in such a manner;
however, the record demonstrates that J.J.T.
disregarded this admonishment and proceeded to engage in criminal conduct
consisting of
unlawful compensation and lying under
oath, which resulted in his
disbarment. This type of
[**5] conduct is extremely damaging to the legal profession and process, and
unlawful compensation is akin to bribery. Indeed, J.J.T. agreed at his
formal hearing, after pointed questioning, that the import of his solicitation of $ 2500 from
his court-assigned client was that his client would be sentenced to
probation in exchange for the cash payment.
Recognizing the serious nature of the
misconduct for which J.J.T. was
disbarred, we agree with the Board that J.J.T. has not shown
sufficient
"positive action" to establish his
rehabilitation. As to this element, J.J.T. was required to show
rehabilitation by such things as his
"occupation, religion, community or civic service. Merely showing that [he] is
now living and doing those things that he . . . should have done throughout
life, although necessary to prove
rehabilitation, does not prove that [he] has undertaken a useful and constructive place in
society." Fla. Bar Admiss. R. 3-13(g). This requirement is a stringent one, and the
burden was on J.J.T. to present evidence of the
"extra effort" required to show
rehabilitation. See
Florida Bd. of Bar Exam'rs re L.H.H., 660 So. 2d 1046, 1049 (Fla. 1995).
Here, the record
[**6] shows that J.J.T. has done
volunteer work a
nonprofit corporation, A Child Is Missing. This corporation assists law enforcement
agencies in locating missing children through a computerized telephone dialing
and messaging system. The
executive director of the corporation testified that J.J.T.'s
involvement increased from several times a week in the beginning to several hours each
weekday in the six to eight months preceding the formal
rehabilitation hearing. The
executive director also testified regarding the possibility that J.J.T. may eventually be
employed by the corporation on a paid
full-time basis. J.J.T. admits that this possibility is part of his motivation for
volunteering and that his
"ambition would be to develop A Child is Missing to the point where [he] would
be able to have a salary from them, and maybe some day act as a legal counsel
in addition to doing whatever else is required." Additionally, J.J.T. has done
volunteer work for a church on three or four occasions during the last three years and
volunteered on three occasions to counsel victims of AIDS.
Very recently, in
Florida Board of Bar Examiners re M.L.B., 766 So. 2d 994, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 738, *12,
2000 WL 373764, *4
[**7] (Fla. 2000), this Court addressed the
"positive action" element of
rehabilitation and stated:
The rules contemplate and we wish to encourage positive actions beyond those
[*1097] one would normally do for self benefit, including, but certainly not limited
to, working as a guardian ad litem,
volunteering on a regular basis with shelters for the homeless or victims of domestic
violence, or maintaining substantial
involvement in other charitable, community, or educational organizations whose value
system, overall mission, and activities are directed to good deeds and
humanitarian concerns impacting a broad base of citizens.
J.J.T. was
disbarred in 1992. In the six years prior to his
rehabilitation hearing, aside from his work with A Child is Missing, he can show only a
handful of instances of volunteer community service.
Further, while J.J.T.'s work for A Child Is Missing is commendable and appears
to be the type of activity encouraged in M.L.B., his most active participation
did not occur until shortly before the
rehabilitation hearing, and its value as evidence of
rehabilitation is diminished by the fact that his admitted ultimate goal is paid
full-time employment for himself.
[**8]
We also agree with the Board's determination that J.J.T. did not provide
clear and convincing evidence of his desire and intent to conduct himself in an
exemplary fashion in the future. The Board based this determination on two main factors.
First, the Board correctly discounted the weight given to much of his
"corroborating evidence" on this element-character letters and affidavits. J.J.T. does not dispute that
many of his character letters and affidavits were submitted by persons who did
not know why he was
disbarred.
"It is important for those attesting to an applicant's moral character to be
aware of his or her past
misconduct, and
recommendations from those who are unaware of it may be given less weight."
M.L.B., 2000 Fla. LEXIS 738, *5,
2000 WL 373764, at *2; see also
Florida Bd. of Bar Exam'rs re J.C.B., 655 So. 2d 79, 82 (Fla. 1995)(noting concern that
"most of [the applicant's] character witnesses did not know why he was
disbarred"). Further, while the signatories presumably read and agreed with the content,
the fact that J.J.T. prepared and managed the content of many of the letters
and affidavits himself also diminishes their value as
corroborating evidence.
[**9]
Second, the Board found that J.J.T.'s own testimony at the
formal hearing
"displayed either a lack of candor or an inability to fully accept and
appreciate the serious nature of his past
misconduct;" thus, it found his assurances of good behavior in the future
"unconvincing." This is essentially an assessment of the
credibility of J.J.T.'s testimony. Accordingly, we defer to the Board's judgment in this
regard. Cf.
Florida Bd. of Bar Exam'rs re G.J.G., 709 So. 2d 1377, 1379-80 (Fla. 1998)(deferring to Board's findings based upon
credibility of witnesses).
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the Board's finding that J.J.T. has not
established
rehabilitation along with its
recommendation that he not be
readmitted to The Florida Bar at this time.
It is so ordered.
HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ.,
concur.
