FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Se pt e m be r 21, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N os . 05- 16011 & 06- 10776 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 0 0 0 1 4 - CV - 4 - RH F R A N K J . L A W R E N C E , J R ., P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s R . T E R R Y R I G S B Y , i n h i s off i ci al capaci ty a s C hai rm an of th e F lo r id aB o a r d o f

B a rE x a m in e r s , E L E A N O R M I T C H E L L H U N T E R , i n h eroffi ci al capaci ty a s E xecut i ve D ir e c to ro f

th e F lo r id aB o a r d o f

B a rE x a m in e r s , H O N . B A R B A R A J . P A R I E N T E , i n h eroffi ci al capaci ty a s C hi ef Just i ce o f th e F lo r id aS u p r e m e C o u r t, D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe N or the rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 21, 2006)2

B efo re C A RN E S , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A ppe l l a ntF r a nk J . L a w r e nc e , J r . w a s de ni e d a dm i s s i on t o the F l or i daB a rf or f a ilin g to m e e t th e f

itn e s s r e q u ir e m e n ts . H e f ile d ac o m p la in t in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, r a is in g f e d e r a l c o n s titu tio n a l a n d s ta tu to ry c h a lle n g e s to th e d e n ia l o f h is a d m is s io n . I n an o r d e rd a te d O c to b e r7 , 2 0 0 5 , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d is m is s e d h is c om pl a i ntba s e d on the abs t e nt i on pr i nc i pl e s s e tf or th i n Mi dd les exC ou nt y E thi cs C om m i t te e v . G arde n State B arA s s oc i at i on , 4 5 7 U. S. 4 2 3 , 1 0 2 S. Ct . 2 5 1 5 , 7 3 L. E d. 2d 116 ( 1982) w he r e the S upr e m e C our tde t e rm i ne d tha tf e de r a l a c t i on c ha l l e ngi ng ongoi ng s t a t e ba rdi s c i pl i na ry pr oc e e di ngs i s ba rr e d by the doc tr i ne of Y o u n g e rv . H

a r r is , 40 1 U . S . 37 , 91 S . C t . 74 6, 27 L . E d. 2d 66 9 (19 71 ). A l at er fi l ed m ot i on for r el i ef

fr om j ud gm entpu rs uantt o F ed. R . C i v. P . 60 (b)( 6) w as de ni e d i n a n or de rda t e d J a nua ry 17, 2006 ba s e d on the pr i nc i pl e s s e tf or th i n the R ooke r - Fe ldm an do ctri ne. In thatorder, the di stri ctcourtfoun d thatfe dera l re vi ew of the F l or i daS upr e m e C our t ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng L a w r e nc e a dm i s s i on t o the F l or i daB a rw oul d be i m pr ope rbe c aus e i tw oul d e s s e nt i a l l yc ons t i tut e a n appe a l of as ta te c o u r t d e c is io n in af e d e r a l d is tr ic t c o u r t, a n d th a t r e lie f is m o r e ap p r o p r ia te o n ap e titio n f

o rw r it o f

c e r tio r a r i to th e U n ite d S ta te s S u p r e m e C o u r t. R oo ke r v . Fi de l i t y T r us t C om pany , 26 3 U . S . 41 3, 44 S . C t . 14 9, 68 L . E d. 36 2 (19 23 );3

D is tr i c t of C olum bi a C our t

of Appe al s v . Fe ldm an , 460 U . S . 462, 103 S . C t . 1303, 7 5 L . E d . 2 d 2 0 6 , ( 1 9 8 2 ) . L a w r e n c e n o w c h a lle n g e s th o s e ru lin g s in th is c o n s o lid a te d ap p e a l. A ft ercare ful consi dera t i on of the bri ef s and re cord, w e f

i nd thatthe di stri ct court ’ s order s c on st i tut e aprop erappl i ca t i on of the control l i ng l aw t o the m at er i al fact s i n th i s case. W e th erefo re affirm th e co u rt ’ s j u d g m en t s. AF F I RME D.