Case Title: Florida Board of Bar Examiners Re: J.J.T.

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC96-477

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2000-06-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida
 
____________
No. SC96477
____________
FLORIDA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS RE:  J.J.T.
[June 15, 2000]
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 an investigative hearing, the Board
1J.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.  
2Fla. Bar Admiss. R. 3-13(g).
3Fla. Bar Admiss. R. 3-13(e).
-2-
served formal specifications against him.  The specifications were based solely on
his prior discipline1 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.  
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 rehabilitation2 and had not sufficiently proven his
desire and intent to conduct himself in an exemplary fashion in the future.3 
-3-
Accordingly, the Board  recommended that J.J.T. not be readmitted to The Florida
Bar at this time.  
We agree with the Board that  J.J.T. has not shown he is  presently qualified
for readmission to The Florida Bar.  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
conduct is extremely damaging to the legal profession and process, and unlawful
-4-
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 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
-5-
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., No. SC95639, 
2000 WL 373764, *4 (Fla. April 13, 2000), this Court addressed the “positive
action” element of rehabilitation and stated:
The rules contemplate and we wish to encourage positive
actions beyond those 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,
-6-
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.      
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 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
-7-
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.  
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.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND IF
FILED, DETERMINED. 
Original Proceeding - Florida Board of Bar Examiners
Kathryn E. Ressel, Executive Director, and Thomas A. Pobjecky, General Counsel,
-8-
Tallahassee, Florida,
for Petitioner
Brion Blackwelder, Hollywood, Florida, 
for Respondent