Case Title: The Florida Bar v. Lijyasu M. Kandekore

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC05-907

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2006-05-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
FRIDAY, APRIL 7, 2006 
 
 
CASE NO.:  SC05-907 
 
Lower Tribunal No.:  2006-70,052(11A) 
 
 
THE FLORIDA BAR 
 
RE:  LIJYASU M. KANDEKORE 
Complainant(s) 
 
Respondent(s) 
 
 
 
Because of his repetitive challenges to his disbarment and permanent 
disbarment, on December 8, 2005, this Court ordered Lijyasu M. Kandekore to 
show cause why this Court should not direct the Clerk of the Court to reject for 
filing any petitions or pleadings of any kind which in any way challenge his 
disbarment or permanent disbarment.  See Fla. Bar v. Kandekore, 766 So. 2d 1004 
(Fla. 2000); Fla. Bar v. Kandekore, 868 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2003).  The order to show 
cause was based on the following facts.    
 
Kandekore received an emergency suspension in Florida due to his 
misconduct in New York, where he was charged with assaulting a police officer.  
Fla. Bar v. Kandekore, 729 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 1999).  He filed a motion for rehearing 
regarding the emergency suspension, which the Court denied.   
 
Despite being suspended, he filed a request to engage in pro bono legal 
work.  The Court denied the request.   
 
After proceedings before a referee, Kandekore was disbarred in Florida due 
to his assault on the New York police officer (a felony in the State of New York).  
Fla. Bar v. Kandekore, 766 So. 2d 1004, 1005 (Fla. 2000).   He filed a motion for 
rehearing, which the Court denied.   
 
 
 
Case No. SC05-907 
Page Two 
 
 
 
Kandekore continued to engage in the practice of law, even though he was 
disbarred.  Thus, the Court permanently disbarred him.  Fla. Bar v. Kandekore, 868 
So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2003).  He filed a motion for rehearing, which the Court denied in 
February 2004.   
 
Even though he was permanently disbarred, Kandekore filed a motion for 
leave to apply for readmission to the bar.  In the motion, he continued to challenge 
the facts of his initial disbarment and his permanent disbarment, and claimed that 
he was eligible to seek readmission at that time.  In May 2004, which was merely 
three months after addressing his motion for rehearing regarding the permanent 
disbarment, the Court issued an order denying his motion to apply for readmission. 
 
In January 2005, despite being permanently disbarred, he filed another 
request to engage in pro bono legal work.  In April 2005, the Court denied his 
second request to engage in pro bono legal work. 
 
The next month, May 2005, Kandekore filed another petition for leave to 
apply for readmission to the Florida Bar.  The Court denied his petition.  Fla. Bar v 
Kandekore, SC05-907 (Fla. Dec. 8, 2005).  
 
Kandekore responded to the Court's order to show cause, dated December 8, 
2005, by stating that he does not continue to challenge the Court's previous 
decisions.  Despite this statement, in Kandekore's response he continues to 
challenge the facts and legal findings in his disciplinary cases.  Even though 
Kandekore thinks that he was wrongfully sanctioned, the dispositions in these 
cases have been final since 2000 and 2003. 
 
 
 
Case No. SC05-907 
Page Three 
 
 
 
In his response, Kandekore also claims that despite the Court's order of 
permanent disbarment, he thought he was eligible to apply for readmission.  He 
asserts that "perpetual exclusion from the bar is not permissible under Florida law."  
Kandekore is incorrect.  Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 3-5.1(f) provides that 
"[p]ermanent disbarment shall preclude readmission."  Further, rule 3-7.10(n)(1) 
states that "[a]n order of disbarment that states the disbarment is permanent shall 
preclude readmission to The Florida Bar."  See In re Amendments to Rules 
Regulating the Florida Bar, 718 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 1998)(clarifying that that the 
sanction of permanent disbarment is permanent, and precludes readmission). 
Kandekore cannot circumvent the rules simply by filing repetitive motions and 
petitions seeking to vacate his disbarment and permanent disbarment. 
 
Despite the Court's definitive statements that it will not revisit Kandekore's 
sanctions, the Court has little doubt that Kandekore will continue to file challenges 
to his disbarment and permanent disbarment.  After considering Kandekore's 
repetitious filings, we emphasize that the resources of our court system are finite 
and must be reserved for the resolution of genuine disputes.  See Peterson v. State, 
817 So. 2d 838, 840 (Fla. 2002).  As noted by the United States Supreme Court, 
"every paper filed with the Clerk of this Court, no matter how repetitious or 
frivolous, requires some portion of the institution's limited resources.  A part of the 
Court's responsibility is to see that these resources are allocated in a way that 
promotes the interests of justice."  In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989). 
 
 
 
 
Case No. SC05-907 
Page Four 
 
 
 
After considering Kandekore's response to the order to show cause, we 
conclude that he has abused this Court's processes by filing repeated petitions and  
motions challenging cases that have been final for several years.  Kandekore's 
actions create a drain on the Court's limited time, for with each filing the Court has, 
as it must, reviewed and considered repetitious and meritless arguments.  
Therefore, we conclude that a limitation on Kandekore's ability to file repeated 
challenges to his long-final sanctions would further the constitutional right of 
access because it would permit this Court to devote its finite resources to the 
consideration of legitimate claims filed by others. 
 
In order to preserve the right of access for all litigants and promote the 
interests of justice, the Clerk of this Court is hereby instructed to reject for filing 
any petitions or pleadings of any kind from Lijyasu M. Kandekore which in any 
way challenge the sanctions entered by this Court in Florida Bar v. Kandekore, 766 
So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 2000), and Florida Bar v. Kandekore, 868 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2003).  
Further, if Lijyasu M. Kandekore violates this order, he shall be directed to show 
cause why he should not be prohibited from submitting any filings with this Court 
unless they are signed by an active member of The Florida Bar.  As Kandekore is 
permanently disbarred, he is no longer a member of The Florida Bar.  See R. 
Regulating Fla. Bar 3-5.1(f).     
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case No. SC05-907 
Page Five 
 
 
 
Kandekore's "motion for deferred payment of assessed costs and for waiver 
of filing fees" is denied.  The parties are directed to comply with this Court's 
previous order concerning a payment plan.  See Fla. Bar v. Kandekore, No. SC00-
2611 (Fla. Feb. 2, 2004). 
 
It is so ordered. 
PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and 
BELL, JJ., concur. 
 
 
A True Copy 
Test: 
 
jn 
Served: 
 
RANDI KLAYMAN LAZARUS 
 
 
 
JOHN ANTHONY BOGGS 
LIJYASU MAHOMET KANDEKORE