Title: The Florida Bar Re: George Murray Hudson  (order)

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2011 
 
                                                             CASE NO.:  SC10-329 
                                                             Lower Tribunal No.:  2010-51,267(15C)FRE 
 
 
THE FLORIDA BAR 
 
RE:  GEORGE MURRAY HUDSON 
Complainant(s) 
 
Respondent(s) 
 
 
The uncontested report of the referee is approved and George Murray 
Hudson is reinstated effective immediately under the terms and conditions set forth 
in the report. 
 
Each party shall bear its own costs. 
 
Not final until time expires to file motion for rehearing and, if filed, 
determined. The filing of a motion for rehearing shall not alter the effective date of 
this reinstatement. 
 
PARIENTE, QUINCE, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur. 
CANADY, C.J., dissents with an opinion, in which LEWIS and POLSTON, JJ., 
concur. 
 
 
CANADY, C.J., dissenting. 
 
On August 16, 2005, petitioner George Murray Hudson was voluntarily 
placed on the inactive list of The Florida Bar for incapacity unrelated to 
misconduct.  At that time, Hudson was under a three-year term of probation for a 
prior disciplinary offense.  Because the record shows that Hudson committed acts 
constituting disqualifying conduct, contradicts the referee‟s finding that Hudson 
“has not been financially irresponsible during his inactive period,” and does not 
contain clear and convincing evidence that Hudson has been rehabilitated, I would  
 
2 
 
CASE NO. SC10-329 
PAGE 2 
 
disapprove the referee‟s recommendation and dismiss Hudson‟s petition for 
reinstatement. 
“A petitioner seeking reinstatement to The Florida Bar must establish by 
clear and convincing evidence that he has met the criteria set forth in Rule 
Regulating the Florida Bar 3-7.10, „Reinstatement and Readmission Procedures,‟ 
and the decisions of this Court.”  Fla. Bar re McGraw, 903 So. 2d 905, 909 (Fla. 
2005).  “In determining the fitness of the petitioner to resume the practice of law, 
the referee shall consider whether the petitioner has engaged in any disqualifying 
conduct, the character and fitness of the petitioner, and whether the petitioner has 
been rehabilitated . . . .”  R. Regulating Fla. Bar 3-7.10(f).  “A record manifesting a 
deficiency in the honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, or reliability of a petitioner 
may constitute a basis for denial of reinstatement.”  R. Regulating Fla. Bar 3-
7.10(f)(1).  The rule specifically provides that “unlawful conduct” and “financial 
irresponsibility” constitute disqualifying conduct.  R. Regulating Fla. Bar 3-
7.10(f)(1)(A), (G). 
At the hearing before the referee, Hudson admitted that he did not file 
income tax returns for the years 2007 and 2008 until early 2010, when he filed the 
returns “in conjunction with the filing of [his] petition” for reinstatement.  Hudson 
further admitted that he knew he had an obligation to file his tax returns each year 
and that he failed to timely file the returns because he “knew [he] did not have the 
money to pay” what he owed to the federal government.  Hudson did not offer an 
explanation of why he did not seek a filing extension or a payment plan at the time 
the taxes became due.  Hudson also did not assert that he was exempt from filing a 
tax return during the relevant years. 
3 
 
CASE NO. SC10-329 
PAGE 3 
 
 
Hudson‟s willful failure to file income tax returns for the years 2007 and 
2008 is affirmative evidence of both unlawful conduct and financial 
irresponsibility.  Willful failure to file a tax return is a misdemeanor offense, see 
26 U.S.C.A. § 7203 (2011), and the comment to Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 4-
8.4 expressly notes that the “willful failure to file an income tax return” is “illegal 
conduct [that] reflect[s] adversely on fitness to practice law.”  Contrary to the 
referee‟s determination, Hudson‟s willful disregard of his obligation to file income 
tax returns is disqualifying conduct.  This flouting of the federal income tax law is 
serious misconduct which should preclude Hudson‟s reinstatement until he has 
demonstrated rehabilitation. 
 
Hudson‟s disregard of his obligation to file his tax returns is part of a pattern 
of misconduct.  In June 2005, this Court imposed upon Hudson a three-year period 
of probation for misconduct.  In June 2008, he was found guilty of minor 
misconduct and served jail time for an incident of “road rage” that occurred in 
April 2006.  Hudson thus was subject to discipline just prior to voluntarily 
accepting inactive status and then continued to engage in a pattern of 
misconduct—some of which rises to the level of criminal behavior—once being 
declared inactive.  In addition to denying reinstatement at this time, I would 
impose the condition that Hudson not again petition for reinstatement for at least 
three years from the date of this Court‟s decision. 
 
The Florida Bar has correctly sought to prevent the reinstatement of this 
lawyer, who has demonstrated contempt for the law.  It does damage to the 
credibility of The Florida Bar to reinstate a lawyer who has so recently flouted the  
4 
 
CASE NO. SC10-329 
PAGE 4 
 
 
federal income tax law and has otherwise shown a disregard for the requirements 
of the law.  I therefore dissent. 
LEWIS and POLSTON, JJ., concur. 
 
 
 
A True Copy 
Test: 
 
jn 
Served: 
 
KENNETH LAWRENCE MARVIN 
ADRIA E. QUINTELA 
GEORGE MURRAY HUDSON 
HON. DIANA  LEWIS, JUDGE