Case Title: Florida Board Of Bar Examiners Re: Mark Stephen Barnett

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC06-1958

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2007-06-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
____________ 
 
 
 
____________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
Supreme Court of Florida  
No. SC06-1958 
FLORIDA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS  
RE: MARK STEPHEN BARNETT.  
[June 14, 2007] 
PER CURIAM. 
This case is before the Court on the Public Report and Recommendation of 
the Florida Board of Bar Examiners with respect to the application for admission to 
The Florida Bar of Mark Stephen Barnett. We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 15, 
Fla. Const.  For the reasons expressed below, we approve the Board’s Public 
Report and Recommendation and admit Barnett to The Florida Bar on a 
conditional basis.  He is to remain on probation for a period of three years, during 
which time he will fully comply with the conditions recommended by the Board in 
its Public Report and Recommendation. 
FACTUAL BACKGROUND 
Barnett became a member of The Florida Bar in October 1988.  In 1997, he 
filed an uncontested petition to resign in lieu of disciplinary proceedings, which the 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Court granted on August 21, 1997, effective, nunc pro tunc, April 29, 1997, the 
date of his emergency suspension. 
On July 20, 2004, Barnett filed an Application for Admission to The Florida 
Bar with the Florida Board of Bar Examiners.  He successfully completed the 
February 2004 General Bar Examination and the August 2004 Multistate 
Professional Responsibility Examination. 
The Board conducted an investigation of Barnett’s background, including 
the circumstances surrounding his disciplinary resignation from the Bar in 1997, 
which revealed information reflecting adversely upon Barnett’s character and 
fitness under the provisions of rules 2-12, 3-10, 3-11, and 3-12 of the Rules of the 
Supreme Court Relating to Admissions to the Bar.  The Board served Barnett with 
five separate specifications detailing incidents in his past that reflected negatively 
on his character and fitness to practice law.  Barnett filed answers to the 
specifications.  A public formal hearing on the specifications was convened in July 
2006.   
Specification 1 alleged that Barnett was admitted to the Bar in October 1988 
and filed a petition for disciplinary resignation with the Court in June 1997, which 
the Court granted on August 21, 1997.  At the time Barnett filed his petition for 
disciplinary resignation, he was under emergency suspension and had several Bar 
disciplinary cases pending against him.  One of the Bar’s complaints in those cases 
- 2 -
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
alleged that Barnett had misappropriated client funds and failed to hold client 
funds in a separate trust account, in violation of Rules Regulating the Florida Bar 
4-1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to hold in trust, separate from the lawyer’s own 
property, funds and property of clients or third persons that are in a lawyer’s 
possession in connection with a representation); 4-8.4(c) (prohibiting conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); and 5-1.1(a) (requiring a 
lawyer to hold in trust and to apply only to the client’s expressed purposes any 
money or other property entrusted to the attorney, including advances for costs and 
expenses). 
Specification 1 also alleged that the referee, following a hearing on the Bar’s 
complaint, rejected Barnett’s explanation that the matter was a fee dispute between 
him and his client, found Barnett guilty of the rule violations charged, and 
recommended that the Court suspend Barnett for three years, concurrent with three 
years of probation during which time he should be required to submit to random 
drug testing and rehabilitation.  The referee further recommended that the Court 
order Barnett to pay restitution of $13,007.60, to his client and to reimburse the 
Bar’s costs of $5,816.52.  This pending case was dismissed after the Court granted 
Barnett’s petition for a disciplinary resignation. 
Also pending against Barnett at the time of his resignation, and dismissed as 
a result of his resignation, was a ten-count complaint reflecting grievances filed 
- 3 -
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
   
against him with the Bar by ten different individuals.  This complaint alleged 
violations of rules 3-4.8 (nine counts of failing to respond in writing to an 
investigative inquiry by Bar counsel); 4-1.3 (three counts of failing to diligently 
represent a client); 4-1.4 (five counts of failing to communicate with clients); 4-3.2 
(two counts of failing to reasonably expedite litigation); 4-8.4(c) (three counts of 
engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); and 
4-8.4(g) (ten counts of failing to respond in writing to an inquiry from a 
disciplinary agency). 
In addition, Specification 1 alleged that Barnett agreed to represent clients in 
two separate cases after his emergency suspension began, which led the Bar to file 
a petition for an order to show cause and for contempt against him with the Court. 
The petition was dismissed after Barnett’s resignation. 
Specification 2 alleged that Barnett, in November 1997, failed to stop at a 
law enforcement checkpoint because, at the time, he had been on a heroin binge for 
four days.  When he finally stopped, Barnett was arrested and charged with driving 
under the influence, battery on a law enforcement officer, possession of cocaine, 
and resisting arrest with violence. 
Although the charges were dropped, all but the battery on a law enforcement 
officer charge were refiled.  The possession of cocaine charge was eventually nolle 
prossed.  Barnett pled nolo contendere to resisting arrest with violence.  The trial 
- 4 -
 
 
  
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
                                          
 
 
 
court withheld adjudication and placed Barnett on probation for eighteen months. 
The probation was terminated after twelve months.  Barnett pled nolo contendere 
to driving under the influence and was adjudicated guilty.  The trial court 
suspended his driver’s license for six months, ordered Barnett to pay $519.50 in 
fines, and ordered him to complete fifty hours of community service.1 
Specification 3 alleged Barnett failed to timely file his federal income tax 
returns for 1993, 1994, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003.   
Specification 4 alleged that Barnett was sued by Ralph Itzhaki in March 
1997 for $3,000 for money Itzhaki had loaned Barnett and that Barnett had never 
repaid.  In December 1997, a final judgment was entered in favor of Itzhaki for 
$3,000, plus interest of $600, court costs of $129, and the filing fee of $25, for a 
total judgment of $3,754.  The judgment remained unsatisfied. 
Specification 5 alleged that Barnett was in an automobile accident in January 
1996 that led to a suit by Geico in September 1999.  In May 2000, a default 
judgment was entered against Barnett and in favor of Geico for $3,547.37 in 
principal, $1,535.72 in prejudgment interest, and costs of $213.50, for a total 
judgment of $5,296.59. 
In October 2006, the Board filed its Public Report and Recommendation 
with the Court.  The Board found that the allegations in Specifications 1, 2, and 3 
1.  Barnett testified at the final hearing in this matter that his license was 
suspended for eighteen months, not six. 
- 5 -
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
had been proven and that the conduct was individually disqualifying.  The Board 
further found that the allegations in Specifications 4 and 5 had been proven and 
that the conduct was collectively disqualifying. 
Barnett testified concerning his battle with addictive substances that spanned 
over twenty years of his life and caused or contributed to his misconduct.  Barnett 
told the Board that he became a daily marijuana smoker when attending Columbia 
University as an undergraduate.  By the time he dropped out of college in May 
1980, he was a regular user of cocaine.  A short time later, in 1981, he began using 
heroin.  Despite his heroin use, he returned to Columbia as an undergraduate in 
January 1982 and received his Bachelor of Arts degree in May 1983.  When he 
entered law school in January 1985, he was a regular user of heroin. He was still a 
user when he graduated in December 1987 and was employed by the Attorney 
General’s Office.  Shortly after his employment began, he became physically 
dependent and needed daily doses of heroin.  His active addiction continued 
throughout his employment there, which lasted until 1993, when he left the 
Attorney General’s Office to open his own law practice. 
Barnett’s drug abuse continued for some time after his disciplinary 
resignation, until he began attending Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings.  His 
sobriety date is December 20, 1997.  He spent eight days in a detoxification 
program in Massachusetts and lived in a halfway house for approximately two and 
- 6 -
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
one half months after this date.  He obtained employment as a paralegal and has 
been employed and abstinent of drugs and alcohol since then. 
Barnett testified concerning his rehabilitation activities since his resignation 
from the Bar.  These included:  (1) daily prayer and meditation; (2) attending at 
least four AA meetings per week; (3) attending one Florida Lawyers Assistance, 
Inc. (FLA) meeting per week; (4) attending one meeting at the halfway house; (5) 
attending a weekly breakfast meeting on Sunday morning; (6) fulfilling speaking 
engagements at various clubs or treatment centers; (7) serving as an AA sponsor 
for four individuals with daily contact; (8) serving as the sponsor for well over a 
hundred individuals over the years; (9) serving on the board of the San Marco AA 
Club and for four halfway houses; (10) serving as an officer for both AA clubs and 
FLA groups; (11) going to temple every Friday; (12) attending adult education in 
his faith; (13) taking an active role in the temple brotherhood; (14) staying 
involved with Gateway, a support group to help members stay clean and sober 
while enjoying the live music scene; (15) serving at over seventy concerts in the 
last five years with Gateway; (16) complying with all of the reporting requirements 
under the Bar rules for former attorneys working as law clerks; (17) reimbursing 
the Client Security Fund for approximately $20,000 the fund paid to his former 
clients; and (18) paying the costs to the Bar required by the Court’s order granting 
his petition for disciplinary resignation. 
- 7 -
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Several witnesses testified on Barnett’s behalf.  Judy Rushlow, the Assistant 
Director of FLA testified concerning Barnett’s contracts with FLA and his 
exemplary record of compliance with the contract terms since he signed his first 
contract with FLA in January 1998.  The Honorable Hugh Alfred Carithers, Circuit 
Judge in Jacksonville, Florida, also testified on Barnett’s behalf.  Judge Carithers 
testified that he is sure that Barnett has not used alcohol or illegal drugs since he 
has known him. He said the two most important things to Barnett are his ability to 
have honest relationships with others and his sobriety.  Judge Carithers also 
testified that he and Barnett never had a meeting during which they did not pray 
together.  He described Barnett as a very spiritual, giving person, who is always 
doing things for others, and as a very public-minded person.  He also described 
Barnett as one of the most honest and moral people he has ever met and he would 
trust Barnett with his own money or with any case he was qualified to handle. 
Judge Carithers unequivocally recommended that Barnett be readmitted to the Bar. 
In addition to the live testimony presented, Barnett introduced into evidence 
the affidavits of five attorneys, one judge, a rabbi, the applicant’s AA sponsor, an 
individual Barnett sponsored in AA, and a fellow member of Gateway, as well as 
the depositions of his employer and his younger brother. 
The Board concluded that Barnett’s evidence established rehabilitation by 
clear and convincing evidence as required by rule 3-13.   While the Board 
- 8 -
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
recognized that Barnett established a nine-year record of sobriety, it nevertheless 
recommended conditional admission and a probationary period because of the 
additional stress Barnett is likely to face upon his return to the practice of law.   
The Board recommends, and Barnett agrees, that Barnett’s probationary period and 
conditional admission should include several conditions, among which are 
continued abstinence from alcohol and controlled substances and compliance with 
his FLA contract.   
ANALYSIS 
In the bar admission process the burden is upon the applicant to demonstrate 
his or her good moral character.  Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs re H.H.S., 373 So. 2d 
890, 891-92 (Fla. 1979).  Disbarment alone is disqualifying for admission to the 
Bar unless an applicant can show clear and convincing evidence of rehabilitation. 
Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs re Papy, 901 So. 2d 870, 872 (Fla. 2005).  Disciplinary 
resignation is tantamount to disbarment.  Fla. Bar v. Hale, 762 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 
2000).   
In determining whether the petitioner has shown sufficient rehabilitation, the 
nature and seriousness of the offense are to be weighed against the evidence of 
rehabilitation.  Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs re M.L.B., 766 So. 2d 994, 996 (Fla. 2000); 
Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs re D.M.J., 586 So. 2d 1049, 1050 (Fla. 1991).  The “more 
serious the misconduct, the greater the showing of rehabilitation that will be 
- 9 -
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
required.” Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs re J.J.T., 761 So. 2d 1094, 1096 (Fla. 2000).
 
The Papy case is instructive.  The respondent in Papy was an attorney who 
had been previously admitted to the Bar and had resigned pending disciplinary 
proceedings.  He resigned after misappropriating funds from one or more of his 
clients, failing to timely file federal income tax returns for five years, failing to 
timely pay income taxes for six years, and having federal tax liens for unpaid taxes 
for four years filed against him.  At the time of the formal hearing for readmission, 
the respondent still had not satisfied the tax liens for two of the years and failed to 
make the parties injured by his defalcations whole.  The Board recommended that 
the respondent be denied admission.  The Court approved that recommendation. 
“Papy simply has not made adequate progress in rectifying his financial 
irresponsibility for this Court to even consider his admission to the Bar at this 
time.”  901 So. 2d at 872.  “Further, Papy has not engaged in any effort whatsoever 
to make whole the others who suffered financial consequences as a result of his 
misconduct.”  Id.   Stealing from a client is among those acts at the very top of the 
hierarchy of offenses for which lawyers may be disciplined.  Id.; see also Fla. Bar 
v. Korones, 752 So. 2d 586, 589 (Fla. 2000) (disbarring attorney for five years for 
misappropriating funds from his deceased uncle’s estate); Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs 
re M.A.R., 755 So. 2d 89, 91-92 (Fla. 2000) (denying admission to attorney who 
failed to timely file and pay income taxes and wrote worthless checks). 
- 10 -
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Barnett testified that he has repaid the Client Compensation Fund over 
$20,000 to replace the money the Fund paid out to Barnett’s former clients.  He 
also paid the Geico judgment.   He has paid all taxes, interest, and penalties he 
owed to the IRS.  He has not paid the Itzhaki judgment because he does not know 
where Itzhaki is located.   
Rule 3-23.6(b) gives the Board the authority to recommend the conditional 
admission of an applicant “in exceptional cases involving drug, alcohol, or 
psychological problems on the terms and conditions specified by the Board.”  
There is no rule or provision which restricts conditional admissions to first-time 
applicants.  There is no case holding that conditional admissions are inappropriate 
for attorneys who were previously Bar members, but who resigned while 
disciplinary proceedings were pending against them.  Further, conditional 
admission is appropriate because Barnett admits that he had a serious drug 
addiction for over twenty years and that he entered a recovery program after his 
resignation from the Bar. 
We agree with the Board that Barnett’s rehabilitation evidence was 
sufficient to overcome his past misconduct.  His actions in making restitution to 
those he injured and in satisfying his financial obligations demonstrate he has done 
what could be done to atone for his misconduct.  That he has established a solid 
program of recovery for close to a decade, is continuing to actively participate in a 
- 11 -
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
recovery program, and is helping others in their recoveries are also important 
factors in our decision. 
Further, we agree with the Board that Barnett’s admission should be 
conditional.  As noted by the Board, although Barnett practiced law before, he has 
not practiced law since becoming clean and sober.  The conditional admission and 
probationary conditions, to which Barnett agrees, will ensure that any problems 
that arise can be quickly identified and addressed so that the profession and the 
public are protected. 
CONCLUSION 
Accordingly, for the reasons expressed above, we approve the Board’s 
report and recommendation and admit Mark Stephen Barnett to The Florida Bar on 
a conditional basis for three years.  Barnett shall be on probation for the first three 
years of his admission with the probationary conditions recommended by the 
Board. 
It is so ordered. 
ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, and CANTERO, JJ., concur. 
LEWIS, C.J., dissents with an opinion, in which WELLS, J., concurs.  
BELL, J., dissents with an opinion.  
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND  
IF FILED, DETERMINED.  
- 12 -
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
   
 
 
 
LEWIS, C.J., dissenting. 
Because I do not believe that Barnett’s rehabilitation evidence sufficiently 
outweighs his past misconduct to support his unconditional admission and because 
I believe the conditional admission process should be reserved for first-time 
applicants, I must, respectfully, dissent. 
Former members of The Florida Bar or of the bars of other states who have 
been disbarred or who have resigned in lieu of disciplinary proceedings should not 
be viewed in the same light in the admissions process as first-time applicants.  I am 
of the view that the availability of conditional admission should be restricted to the 
case in which a first-time applicant for admission to the Bar, who has suffered in 
the past from drug or alcohol addiction or a psychological problem, is now clean 
and sober or functioning normally with medication.  Conditional admission under 
such circumstances allows the Bar to monitor the applicant’s compliance with the 
treatment regimen for swift action to be taken to revoke the license if a relapse 
occurs, yet still allow some youthful mistakes to be overcome. See Fla. Bd. of Bar 
Exam’rs re J.A.S., 658 So. 2d 515, 516 (Fla. 1995) (conditionally admitting 
applicant with former drug addiction). 
The same policy considerations do not exist for applicants who have 
previously been members of the Bar, but who have resigned or been disbarred 
because of serious misconduct as an attorney.  These applicants have already been 
- 13 -
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
given a chance and have failed to honor and satisfy their obligations.  Barnett falls 
into this category.  He was previously admitted to The Florida Bar.  While a 
practicing attorney he engaged in extensive unethical and egregious conduct and 
resigned in lieu of disciplinary proceedings.  He should be required to prove his 
rehabilitation such that the recommendation for admission is unconditional.  The 
conduct preceding the resignation was moving rapidly to disbarment. 
As noted by the majority, the nature and seriousness of the offense must be 
weighed against the evidence of rehabilitation in determining whether the 
petitioner has shown sufficient rehabilitation,  Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs re M.L.B., 
766 So. 2d 994, 996 (Fla. 2000).  Also, the “more serious the misconduct, the 
greater the showing of rehabilitation that will be required.” Fla. Bd. of Bar 
Exam’rs re J.J.T., 761 So. 2d 1094, 1096 (Fla. 2000).   
Barnett’s rehabilitation evidence included evidence that he has been clean 
and sober since December 20, 1997, a little over nine years.  He has been working 
as a paralegal for various attorneys since January 1998 and is involved in AA and 
Gateway, attending several meetings every week as part of his own recovery 
efforts and to assist others in their recovery efforts.  While commendable, these 
activities seem to be a “showing that an individual is now living as and doing those 
things he or she should have done throughout life” to keep himself clean and sober 
and “does not prove that the individual has undertaken a useful and constructive 
- 14 -
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
place in society” sufficient to outweigh his past misconduct.  See Fla. Bar Admiss. 
R. 3-13(g).  Although this rehabilitation evidence might be sufficient to convince 
the Board and the Court that someone who had a drug addiction problem in the 
past as a sole disqualifier should be given a chance to prove himself worthy of Bar 
membership, it is not enough to atone for Barnett’s other, extremely serious and 
egregious misconduct.  Even if conditional admission were available for those in 
the position of Barnett, he has not satisfied the requirements for that method of 
admission. 
In making the determination whether the rehabilitation evidence is sufficient 
to outweigh the misconduct, the Court may review the factual underpinnings of the 
Board’s recommendation by conducting an independent review of the record. 
M.L.B., 766 So. 2d at 996; J.J.T., 761 So. 2d at 1096; Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs re 
R.D.I., 581 So. 2d 27, 29 (Fla. 1991).  A review of the transcript of the formal 
hearing in this case reveals several very troubling items of information not 
reflected in the Board’s findings.  In 2004, Barnett informed the Board that he 
would not pay Itzhaki the money he still owes because Itzhaki still owes him 
money.  Then, only two weeks prior to the formal hearing, Barnett called Itzhaki’s 
attorney to find Itzhaki so that he could pay the debt.  This turnaround suggests 
Barnett’s restitution efforts are motivated by his desire to gain readmission and not 
a true desire to make whole those he has injured. 
- 15 -
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
There is also the manner in which Barnett addressed his failure to timely file 
his federal income tax returns.  Barnett testified that he did not timely file his 
income tax returns after he became sober because of fear and because the 
obligation was so overwhelming.  He knew he could not pay the taxes, interest, and 
penalties he owed for the early years, so he did not even file the returns.  Even after 
he entered recovery and was working again, he did not file a return because of a 
stated fear that filing a return would cause the IRS to realize that he had not filed 
returns for several earlier years.  Rather, he reasoned to wait until he had saved 
enough money to pay the taxes before he contacted the IRS. 
Barnett’s conscious decision to continue in violation of the law after he was 
in recovery to forestall the IRS’s discovery of his earlier transgressions 
demonstrates that his addiction was not the cause of all of this illegal conduct.  It 
also demonstrates that he is one who is willing to violate the law when it is in his 
interest to do so.  This has occurred as recently as 2003.  This, in my view, negates 
Barnett’s ability to show that his character is above reproach, a requirement for 
readmission. 
Barnett ultimately contacted the IRS in 2003 or 2004.  At that time, he had 
saved approximately half of the money he needed.  His mother was forced to 
refinance her home to loan him the money to pay his obligations.  This occurred in 
December 2004.  There is no evidence concerning whether Barnett is repaying his 
- 16 -
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
mother, how much, or when.  That Barnett forced his mother to mortgage and 
encumber her home to satisfy his debts to the IRS demonstrates, in my view, that 
he has failed to accept full responsibility for his past misconduct.  The rescuing of 
a child by a parent may be laudable for his mother, but it does not speak highly of 
Barnett. 
In addition, his other evidence of rehabilitation falls flat.  Although I 
recognize and appreciate that much of Barnett’s conduct may have been prompted 
or exacerbated by his substance abuse and the battle he has had with his addiction, 
I nevertheless believe that he engaged in illegal conduct (the use of controlled 
substances) when he was first admitted to the Bar, engaged in and continued to 
engage in illegal drug use while he represented the people of Florida with the 
Attorney General’s Office, and he continued his illegal drug use until he was 
caught.  He did not seek treatment or help with his addiction until after he was 
caught and resigned in lieu of disciplinary proceedings.  Into and including 2003 
he continued to violate the law unconnected with substance abuse for his own 
advantage.  Thereafter, he imposed on his mother to rescue him from his disregard 
of the law.  This demonstrates to me the absence of that strength of character 
needed by a member of the Bar and necessary for admission. 
Because, in my estimation, the rehabilitation evidence is insufficient to 
outweigh Barnett’s past egregious misconduct or to justify unconditional 
- 17 -
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
admission and because I believe conditional admission should be available only to 
first-time applicants, I would disapprove the Board’s recommendation and deny 
admission to Barnett at this time.  He violated the trust he was given as an officer 
of the Court and that is not the same condition as one having youthful 
transgressions but ready to begin an office of trust.  Barnett was given the privilege 
but did not honor that responsibility.  I conclude that conditional admission is not 
designed for this use and even if it were, Barnett has not sufficiently demonstrated 
that he should be admitted under this approach. 
WELLS, J., concurs. 
BELL, J., dissenting. 
I agree with Chief Justice Lewis that the conditional admission process 
should be reserved for first-time applicants to the Bar.  I also agree that Barnett 
does not qualify for unconditional admission. 
Original Proceeding - Florida Board of Bar Examiners 
Michele A. Gavagni, Executive Director, and Thomas A. Pobjecky, General 
Counsel, Florida Board of Bar Examiners, Tallahassee, Florida,
 
for Petitioner 
John A. Weiss of Weiss and Etkin, Tallahassee, Florida,
 
for Respondent 
- 18 -