Case Name: In re FLORIDA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS. In re Benjamin Harris ERVIN
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1974-01-30
Citations: 290 So. 2d 9
Docket Number: No. 43595
Parties: In re FLORIDA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS. In re Benjamin Harris ERVIN.
Judges: McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., and JOHNSON, District Court Judge, concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 290
Pages: 9–13

Head Matter:
In re FLORIDA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS. In re Benjamin Harris ERVIN.
No. 43595.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Jan. 30, 1974.
Rehearing Denied March 15, 1974.
Joseph C. Jacobs of Ervin, Varn, Jacobs & Odom, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
C. Graham Carothers of Ausley, Ausley, McMullen, McGehee & Carothers, Tallahassee, for The Florida Board of Bar Examiners.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We have for review a petition for admission to The Florida Bar pursuant to the diploma privilege which was initially established in 1925. By way of the diploma privilege, the Florida Legislature provided for the admittance of Florida law graduates from specified law schools to the practice of law in this State without the necessity of taking an examination as to their legal attainment.
In 1951, the diploma privilege was repealed, but with certain defined exceptions. The exception now under consideration was embodied in Fla.Stat. § 454.031(3) F.S.A. (1951). It is the petitioner's position that he meets the requirements of this provision and should therefore be admitted to The Florida Bar without the necessity of successfully completing an examination.
Fla.Stat. § 454.031(3) F.S.A. (1951) provided as follows:
"No person shall be entitled to admission to practice without examination as to legal attainments; provided, that any person enrolled on or before the 25th day of July, 1951, as a student in any law school chartered by and conducted within this state or approved by the supreme court shall be entitled to admission upon presenting to the state board of law examiners satisfactory evidence of good moral character and obtaining the degree of bachelor of laws from such school within three years of the date either of his enrollment or of [the effective date of this Act], time spent in military service of the United States, an allied nation, or the United Nations not to be reckoned as a part of said three years." (Emphasis added.)
This provision was repealed in 1955. Petitioner, however, argues, and the Florida Board of Bar Examiners concedes, that where an applicant meets the requirements of Fla.Stat. § 454.031(3) F.S.A., the privilege may still be accorded. This has also been recognized in several cases by this Court.
Turning to the requirements of the statute, it has been conceded that the petitioner obtained his degree of Bachelor of Laws within the period of three years as required by the statute. The only remaining question for our consideration is whether or not the petitioner was "enrolled on or before the 25th day of July, 1951", as a student in a law school chartered by and located within Florida or approved by this Court.
The salient facts establish that in 1950, the petitioner first decided to definitely attend law school. Accordingly, in the latter part of 1950 or early 1951, the petitioner made a firm and abiding determination to enter the summer term of law school at the University of Miami commencing June 14, 1951. In April, 1951, however, petitioner received notice that he was being recalled to active military duty and, pursuant to orders, he re-entered the military on June 5, 1951. Petitioner remained in the military until February 21, 1953, entered the University of Miami Law School at the first available time, June, 1953, and graduated on February 6, 1956.
We are mindful of the fact that the intention of the petitioner to enter law school prior to July 25, 1951 is undisputed and is supported by the sworn statement of the Honorable Claude Pepper, Mrs. Nella A. Christie, an employee of Senator Pepper, and Mrs. Marilee Mac Nichol, also an employee of Senator Pepper. But for the petitioner's recall to active military service, it therefore appears that the petitioner would unquestionably have qualified for admission pursuant to the diploma privilege.
This Court has issued certificates to practice law pursuant to the diploma privilege in several cases involving similar fact situations. In so doing, we have expressed our view that during the period of transition from the diploma privilege to that of bar examination no harsh application of the statute was warranted. As we stated in Petition of Lebrón:
"While fully recognizing the worthy purpose and intent of the statute abolishing the diploma privilege, a harsh and inequitable application of its cut-off provisions should not be meted to those who in the very nature of the situation created by the enactment would be expected in the transition period to take final advantage of the diploma privilege and were eligible to do so and who in good faith sought to do so but did not for some bona fide excusable reason."
To deny this petitioner admittance to The Florida Bar pursuant to the diploma privilege would be to invoke a harsh and inequitable application of the cut-off provisions of Fla.Stat. § 454.031(3), contrary to our statement quoted above.
Having completely and thoroughly considered the remaining issues presented by the respondent, and having found these points unconvincing and not .warranting discussion, we hold that the petition for admittance to The Florida Bar should be granted.
It is so ordered.
McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., and JOHNSON, District Court Judge, concur.
CARLTON, C. J., concurs specially.
BOYD, J., dissents with opinion.
. See Chapter 10176, Section 3, Laws of Florida 1925.
. See Chapter 26665, Section 3, Laws of Florida 1951.
. See Chapter 29796, Section 3, Laws o£ Florida 1955.
. See In re Warford, 194 So.2d 256 (Fla.1967) ; Petition of Rocafort, 186 So.2d 496 (Fla.1966) ; Petition of Lebron, 183 So.2d 544, modified, 185 So.2d 464 (Fla.1966) and In re Bennett's Petition, 168 So.2d 318 (Fla.1964).
. E. G., Petition of Rocafort, 186 So.2d 496 (Fla.1966) ; Petition of Lebron, 183 So.2d 544, modified, 185 So.2d 464 (Fla.1966) ; In re Bennett's Petition, 168 So.2d 318 (Fla. 1964) ; and Smith v. State Board of Law Examiners, 9 Fla.Supp. 66 (Fla. Cir.Ct. 2d, 1955), aff'd, 88 So.2d 626 (Fla.1956).
. 183 So.2d 544, 545-546.