Case Title: Florida Board Of Bar Examiners Re: S.P.M.

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC02-2318

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2003-07-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida
____________
No. SC02-2318
____________
FLORIDA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS 
vs.
RE:   S.P.M.
[July 10, 2003]
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner S.P.M. asks this Court to review the recommendations of the
Florida Board of Bar Examiners.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 15, Fla.
Const.
On February 8, 2000, S.P.M. executed an application for admission to The
Florida Bar.  The Board’s background investigation revealed certain matters
concerning S.P.M.’s character and fitness.  On September 19, 2001, formal
specifications were served upon S.P.M.  
-2-
Specification 1 alleged that S.P.M. had engaged in the following illegal or
improper conduct.  In 1995, he sold fourteen grams of marijuana to an undercover
officer, was arrested, and pled guilty to sale of cannabis; adjudication was withheld,
and he was placed on six months' probation and required to perform 100 hours of
community service.  In 1993, he was involved in an automobile accident, after
which police officers found a marijuana pipe in the car; he pled no contest to
possession of drug paraphernalia, was adjudicated guilty, and was ordered to pay a
$250 fine.  In 1991, he was arrested and charged with possession of cocaine and
possession of cannabis; he pled guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia and
possession of less than twenty grams of cannabis; adjudication was withheld, and
he was ordered to pay a $250 fine and perform 100 hours of community service. 
Also in 1991, he struck a person with his car and was charged with aggravated
battery; he pled no contest, adjudication was withheld, and he was placed in a
community control program and was ordered to pay a $250 fine and perform 100
hours of community service.  He illegally possessed and used marijuana through
1999 or 2000, and he continued to use marijuana while a law student.  In his answer
to the specifications, S.P.M. admitted all of these allegations.
Specification 2 alleged that S.P.M. failed to disclose required information
and provided answers which were false, misleading, or lacking in candor on his
-3-
application for admission to The Florida Bar as follows.  He failed to disclose the
1991 charge of aggravated battery.  His explanation of the 1995 marijuana charge
was false, misleading, or lacking in candor.  His explanation of the 1991 charge of
possession of cocaine and possession of cannabis was false, misleading, or lacking
in candor.  He failed to timely amend his application to disclose that his
employment as a substitute teacher had been terminated, and he did so knowingly
in hopes of being admitted without having to reveal the termination.  S.P.M. denied
intentionally omitting required information or intentionally providing false or
misleading explanations.  S.P.M. admitted that he failed to timely amend his
application with regard to the termination of his employment as a substitute teacher,
but denied intentionally doing so in hopes of being admitted to the bar without
having to reveal the termination.
Specification 3 alleged that S.P.M. wrote three letters, one to an admissions
counselor and two to a dean at Florida Coastal School of Law, which contained
false and misleading descriptions of the 1995 marijuana charge.  S.P.M. admitted
the allegations as to the letters sent to the dean, but claimed that the inaccuracies in
the letter to the admissions counselor were inadvertent.  
Specification 4 alleged that on his application for admission to the Master of
Laws Program at the University of Miami, S.P.M. provided an explanation of the
-4-
1995 marijuana charge which was false, misleading, or lacking in candor.  S.P.M.
admitted that his explanation was inaccurate but denied he intentionally provided
false information.
Specification 5 alleged that on a Pinellas County Schools employee
information form, S.P.M. provided responses regarding his 1993 and 1995 arrests
which were false, misleading, or lacking in candor, and that as a result, he was
terminated from his employment with the Pinellas County Schools on February 15,
2001.  S.P.M. admitted that the responses were inaccurate but denied that the
inaccuracies were intentional.  S.P.M. admitted that he was terminated as a result of
the inaccurate responses. 
After a formal hearing, the Board found that all the specifications had been
proven and adopted the specifications as its specific findings.  The Board
concluded that the proven allegations of Specification 2 were individually
disqualifying for admission to The Florida Bar and that the remaining proven
specifications were collectively disqualifying.  Finally, the Board concluded that to
the extent S.P.M. gave sworn testimony contradicting the Board's findings, he
lacked candor in testimony at both his investigative and formal hearings.  Based on
this conclusion and the proven false statements in his bar application, the Board
recommended, pursuant to rule 3-23.6(d) of the Rules of the Supreme Court
-5-
Relating to Admissions to the Bar, that S.P.M. be disqualified from reapplying for
admission for three years.
S.P.M. first challenges the Board's finding, as alleged in Specification 2, that
he failed to timely disclose his termination from the Pinellas County Schools in
hopes he would be admitted without having to reveal it.  He contends that the
evidence—his and his wife's testimony at the final hearing—showed it was a
coincidence that he notified the Board of his termination just after receiving a notice
to appear for an investigative hearing, and that if he had truly wanted to conceal this
information, he would never have disclosed it at all.  
The Board's findings of fact will be approved if they are supported by
competent substantial evidence in the record.  Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam'rs re R.L.W.,
793 So. 2d 918, 923 (Fla. 2001).  The Board correctly asserts that it did not have
to believe S.P.M.'s version of events.  Id. at 924.  The Board heard the testimony
presented by S.P.M., weighed its credibility, and rejected it.  We defer to the
Board's judgment on this issue.  Id. at 923-24.
In its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation, the
Board painstakingly recited the evidence supporting its finding that S.P.M. failed to
timely amend his bar application in hopes that he would be admitted without having
to reveal the termination of his employment with the Pinellas County Schools.  That
-6-
evidence is as follows.  The application for admission to The Florida Bar
specifically advises applicants that amendments are timely if made within thirty days
of any occurrence that would change an answer on the application.  S.P.M. was
terminated from his employment with the Pinellas County School system on
February 15, 2001, yet he did not disclose this termination to the Board until April
20, 2001, one day after he received a notice to appear for an investigative hearing. 
On April 12, 2001, S.P.M. amended his bar application to disclose a speeding
ticket received the day before, but he did not disclose the termination.  In addition,
on March 7, 2001, March 16, 2001, and April 6, 2001, S.P.M. wrote letters to the
Board imploring the Board to recommend his admission to The Florida Bar.  Based
on this circumstantial evidence, the Board was entitled to infer that S.P.M. was
intentionally failing to disclose his termination in hopes that the Board would
recommend his admission without him having to reveal the termination.  See
R.L.W., 793 So. 2d at 924 (stating that the Board may find that facts are proven by
circumstantial evidence where the inference of the fact preponderates over other
inferences).  Accordingly, we uphold the Board's finding.
S.P.M. does not take issue with any of the Board's other factual findings or
with its recommendation that he not be admitted to the bar at this time. 
Accordingly, we approve the Board’s findings and recommendations in those
-7-
respects.  S.P.M. does, however, challenge the Board's recommendation that he be
disqualified from reapplying for admission for three years.   
The Rules of the Supreme Court Relating to Admissions to the Bar provide
for a standard two-year period following denial of admission during which an
applicant may not reapply.  See Fla. Bar Admiss. R. 2-13.5.  However, rule 3-
23.6(d) gives the Board the discretion to recommend an enhanced disqualification
period in cases involving material misrepresentations in the application process. 
Here, the Board found that on four separate occasions S.P.M. was not candid in
his application for admission.  The Board stated that “[w]hile in most instances, the
applicant would have us believe these inaccurate descriptions were inadvertent, the
Board concludes that the applicant has purposely tried to provide misleading
information.”  The Board also expressed “concern[] that the applicant still does not
understand the importance of candor in the Bar admission process and in the legal
profession,” due to his testimony before the Board.  Finally, the Board specifically
concluded that “to the extent the applicant gave sworn testimony contradicting the
Board’s findings, . . . the applicant has lacked candor in testimony before the
Board at both his investigative hearing and his formal hearing in addition to the
proven false statements in his Bar Application and Amendments thereto.” 
S.P.M. argues that his lack of candor in the admissions process is not
-8-
serious enough to warrant a three-year disqualification.  We disagree.  Any material
omission or misrepresentation made in the application process for admission to
The Florida Bar is a serious matter.  On his bar application, S.P.M. intentionally
failed to disclose required information and provided false and misleading
information regarding his past criminal conduct.  He continued this pattern of
dishonesty in his investigative and final hearing testimony.  Such a lack of candor
by an applicant seeking admission to The Florida Bar is intolerable.  S.P.M.’s
conduct clearly falls within rule 3-23.6(d), and the Board was justified in
recommending an enhanced disqualification period. 
Accordingly, we approve the Board's recommendation that S.P.M. be
denied admission to The Florida Bar at this time.  Further, in light of S.P.M.’s
material  misrepresentations in the bar admission process, we approve the Board's
recommendation that he be disqualified from reapplying for admission for three
years. 
It is so ordered.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and WELLS, PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and
BELL, JJ., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND
IF FILED, DETERMINED.
Original Proceeding - Florida Board of Bar Examiners
-9-
Richard A. Greenberg, Tallahassee, Florida,
for Petitioner
Michael J. Keane, Chair, Eleanor Mitchell Hunter, Executive Director, and Robert
G. Blythe, Deputy General Counsel, Florida Board of Bar Examiners, Tallahassee,
Florida,
for Respondent