Case Name: FLORIDA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS Re N.R.S.
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1981-06-18
Citations: 403 So. 2d 1315
Docket Number: No. 59238
Parties: FLORIDA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS Re N.R.S.
Judges: SUNDBERG, C. J., and ADKINS, OVER-TON, ENGLAND and McDONALD, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 403
Pages: 1315–1319

Head Matter:
FLORIDA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS Re N.R.S.
No. 59238.
Supreme Court of Florida.
June 18, 1981.
Robert F. Eimers, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Florida, Inc., of Eimers & Jerome, Miami, for petitioner.
Paul B. Anton, Chairman, Florida Board of Bar Examiners, Hollywood, and C. Graham Carothers, Tallahassee, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We are asked to determine to what extent the Florida Board of Bar Examiners, in furtherance of its effort to determine the fitness of applicants for admission to the Florida Bar, may inquire into an applicant's sexual conduct. This issue arises from the application of an attorney admitted to practice in New York, who has successfully passed all parts of the Florida Bar examination. The board concedes that, except for the issue of sexual conduct, it has no adverse information concerning petitioner's fitness.
In his application for admission, petitioner disclosed that the Selective Service classified him 4-F, either because of a physical problem or because of his homosexuality. At an informal hearing the board inquired into petitioner's sexual conduct. Petitioner admitted a continuing sexual preference for men but refused to answer questions about his past sexual conduct and indicated that he had no present intention regarding future homosexual acts. He did state that he would obey all the laws of Florida. After reviewing his testimony, the board requested that petitioner return to answer additional questions. He declined and petitioned this Court to order the board to certify him for admission to practice.
Petitioner presents a delicate issue. A lawyer
should be temperate and dignified, and he should refrain from all illegal and morally reprehensible conduct. Because of his position in society, even minor violations of law by a lawyer may tend to lessen public confidence in the legal profession. Obedience to law exemplifies respect for law. To lawyers especially, respect for the law should be more than a platitude.
Fla.Bar Code Prof.Resp., E.C. 1-5. The board suggests that an applicant's past homosexual acts are relevant to determine whether past conduct will prevent him from achieving the social acceptance necessary to enable him to discharge his professional responsibilities and whether the applicant intends to disobey the laws of Florida which he seeks to be sworn to uphold.
The investigation performed by the Florida Board of Bar Examiners should be limited to inquiries which bear a rational relationship to an applicant's fitness to practice law. Accord, In re Florida Board of Bar Examiners, 358 So.2d 7 (Fla.1978). Private noncommercial sex acts between consenting adults are not relevant to prove fitness to practice law. This might not be true of commercial or nonconsensual sex or sex involving minors.
In the instant case the board may ask the petitioner to respond to further questioning if, in good faith, it finds a need to assure itself that the petitioner's sexual conduct is other than noncommercial, private, and between consenting adults. Otherwise, the board shall certify his admission.
It is so ordered.
SUNDBERG, C. J., and ADKINS, OVER-TON, ENGLAND and McDONALD, JJ., concur.
BOYD, J., dissents with an opinion.
ALDERMAN, J., dissents with an opinion, with which BOYD, J., concurs.
Petitioner alleges that § 800.02, Fla.Stat. (1979), which proscribes unnatural and lascivious acts, cannot be constitutionally applied to private consensual conduct between adults. We have upheld § 800.02. See Witherspoon v. State, 278 So.2d 611 (Fla.1973). In view of our holding in this case we do not respond to this contention.