Title: Florida Board Of Bar Examiners Re: Fred C. McMahan
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC06-795
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: November 30, 2006

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC06-795 
____________ 
 
 
FLORIDA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS RE: FRED C. MCMAHAN. 
 
[November 22, 2006] 
CORRECTED OPINION 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
We have for review a report by the Florida Board of Bar Examiners (Board) 
recommending that Fred C. McMahan be readmitted to The Florida Bar.  We have 
jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.  For the reasons explained herein, we 
disapprove the Board’s recommendation that McMahan be readmitted.   
FACTS 
After conducting an investigation and holding a full hearing, the Board 
issued a report which contains detailed findings with regard to McMahan and his 
conduct.    
In 1991, McMahan was admitted to the practice of law in Florida.  As the 
result of felony convictions in 1997, McMahan filed a petition for disciplinary 
resignation.  The Court granted the petition, which rendered the resignation 
effective August 14, 1997.   
In 2002, McMahan sought readmission to The Florida Bar.  As the result of 
a background investigation, the Board filed specifications and held a hearing.  The 
Board found the specifications proven and disqualifying for McMahan’s 
readmission to the Bar.  However, the Board also found that McMahan had 
established his rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence and recommended 
that he be readmitted to The Florida Bar.  We strongly disagree.   
Specification 1 alleged that McMahan’s brother directed a large drug 
trafficking operation throughout the 1980s.  McMahan knowingly participated in 
the illegal conduct and assisted his brother with these criminal activities in 
numerous ways.  McMahan cultivated and harvested marijuana on farmland in 
Kentucky.  He also participated in the purchase of a farm in his name, on his 
brother’s behalf.  McMahan knew the farm was being purchased with funds 
derived from his brother’s illegal drug operation.   
McMahan also delivered funds on behalf of his brother to make a payment 
for land that his brother had purchased.  McMahan knew the funds for this 
transaction were derived from his brother’s illegal drug operation.   
In addition, during the course of this joint illegal drug operation, McMahan 
accepted financial assistance from his brother to support him while he attended 
 
- 2 -
school.  Further, McMahan knowingly assisted other individuals who fraudulently 
asserted ownership interests in properties forfeited to the government because they 
were purchased with funds derived from this illegal drug operation.   
After being admitted to The Florida Bar, McMahan was indicted by a federal 
grand jury in 1996 on multiple felony charges as the result of these criminal 
activities.  He eventually entered pleas of guilty to two counts, conspiracy to 
conduct money laundering and conspiracy to obstruct justice.  In 1997, he was 
adjudicated guilty and sentenced to prison for twenty-four months to be followed 
by a period of supervised release.  The term of imprisonment was subsequently 
reduced to seventeen months.  
Specification 2 stated that due to the felony convictions described in 
Specification 1, McMahan was automatically suspended from the practice of law 
in 1997.  Thereafter, the Bar filed a disciplinary complaint against McMahan based 
on the misconduct underlying the felony convictions.  In response to that 
complaint, McMahan petitioned for disciplinary resignation, which this Court 
granted.   
After the Board filed the specifications, McMahan admitted all of the 
allegations.  Thus, the Board found that both specifications were proven.  
Thereafter, McMahan presented the testimony of three witnesses during a formal 
hearing.   
 
- 3 -
James Cadwell testified that McMahan is a good lawyer and that McMahan 
is trying to move on with his life.  Cadwell stated that McMahan is now more 
focused and dedicated than he was before his legal problems.  Cadwell also 
believes McMahan has become an honest and trustworthy person, who accepts 
responsibility for his past misdeeds.  In the Board’s report, Cadwell does not 
provide any specific evidence of McMahan’s rehabilitation.   
Joseph C. Warren testified that he became familiar with McMahan when 
McMahan worked at the public defender’s office in 1992.  At the time, Warren 
worked for the State Attorney’s Office.  Warren and McMahan were opposing 
counsel in the same court for a rather short period, only eight to ten months.  
Warren testified that McMahan was a dedicated lawyer.  Warren last worked with 
McMahan well over a decade ago, in 1993, and Warren has had only “occasional 
contact” with McMahan since he was released from prison.  Warren believes that 
McMahan’s family exerted influence over him, that McMahan would not have 
become involved in such illegal activities on his own, and that he has accepted 
responsibility for his misconduct.  Warren also does not provide any specific 
evidence of McMahan’s rehabilitation.   
Jerome Mitchell testified that he has known McMahan as a friend for 
approximately eleven years.  During a two-year period, McMahan has been 
working as a paralegal for Mitchell’s firm, which specializes in real estate, land 
 
- 4 -
use, and business-related civil litigation.  In Mitchell’s view, McMahan has 
complied with the rules associated with disbarred attorneys working as paralegals.  
Mitchell intends to hire McMahan if he is admitted to the Bar.  Mitchell stated that 
McMahan is a great paralegal who will make a great lawyer.  Also, Mitchell 
believes McMahan has rehabilitated himself by dedicating time to Teen Court 
(which has given him three awards for his service), helping people learn to read, 
and taking a significant amount of legal education courses.   
McMahan testified that he has focused his energies on Teen Court, the 
Volusia County Literacy Society, and donating blood.  Also, for several years, 
McMahan has held more than one job to meet his financial obligations.   
ANALYSIS 
An applicant who affirmatively asserts rehabilitation from prior misconduct 
is required to produce clear and convincing evidence of such rehabilitation.  See 
Fla. Bar Admiss. R. 3-13; Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam'rs re J.J.T., 761 So. 2d 1094, 1096 
(Fla. 2000).  In determining whether McMahan has shown sufficient rehabilitation, 
“[t]he nature and seriousness of the offense are to be weighed against the evidence 
of rehabilitation.”  Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam'rs re D.M.J., 586 So. 2d 1049, 1050 (Fla. 
1991).  The “more serious the misconduct, the greater the showing of rehabilitation 
that will be required.”  J.J.T., 761 So. 2d at 1096.  Further, when reviewing a 
recommendation of the Board with regard to whether an applicant should be 
 
- 5 -
admitted to the Bar, this Court is not precluded from “reviewing the factual 
underpinnings of its recommendation, based on an independent review of the 
record developed at the hearings.”  Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam'rs re R.D.I., 581 So. 2d 
27, 29 (Fla. 1991) (quoting Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs re L.K.D., 397 So. 2d 673, 675 
(Fla. 1981)).   
McMahan engaged in extremely serious illegal conduct over a lengthy 
period of time.  He knowingly assisted in the cultivation and distribution of illegal 
drugs.  In short, McMahan was an illegal drug dealer.  His participation in illegal 
activities extends over a period of time from before he entered law school into the 
period he was a member of The Florida Bar.  McMahan effectively concealed his 
illicit background as he entered law school, after subsidizing his education through 
illegal funds from the unlawful drug operation.  In addition, McMahan engaged in 
a pattern of criminal acts even though he had served as a government attorney in 
the criminal justice system.  Thus, the nature and seriousness of his misconduct 
weigh heavily when compared to any evidence of rehabilitation.   
McMahan’s misconduct consisted of the very activities this Court has 
properly characterized as destructive to society.  Further, as McMahan knew from 
serving as a government attorney in the criminal justice system, “[m]uch of the 
resources of the judicial system are directed toward curbing the very [criminal] 
activities” in which McMahan was engaging.  Fla. Bar v. Sheppard, 518 So. 2d 
 
- 6 -
250, 250 (Fla. 1987).  As this Court stated in Florida Bar v. Hecker, 475 So. 2d 
1240, 1243 (Fla. 1985), “[i]llegal drug activities are a major blight on our society–
nationally, statewide and locally.”  This Court cannot emphasize enough that Bar 
members or applicants who participate in such activities will and must be 
accountable and dealt with severely.  Id.   
 
Further, McMahan pled guilty to the crimes of conspiracy to conduct money 
laundering and conspiracy to obstruct justice.  The very foundation of these crimes 
consists of intentional and dishonest acts that undermine our system of justice.  
This Court has held that “no qualification for membership in The Florida Bar is 
more important than truthfulness and candor.”  In re Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam'rs re 
E.R.M., 630 So. 2d 1046, 1048 (Fla. 1994).   
The overwhelming evidence of McMahan’s lengthy criminal activities 
involving the cultivation and distribution of illegal drugs, along with his 
demonstrated dishonesty, requires that he make an extraordinary showing of 
evidence of rehabilitation.  Most of the evidence McMahan submitted as proof of 
rehabilitation relates to activities that are expected generally from any typically 
responsible citizen.  For example, countless people maintain their financial affairs 
by holding more than one job.  To suggest that this status is important and 
constitutes rehabilitation is misdirected.  Numerous responsible citizens donate 
blood.  People are expected to conduct themselves in an honest and trustworthy 
 
- 7 -
manner and to accept responsibility for their past misdeeds.  Further, it is not a sign 
of rehabilitation that McMahan complied with the requirements of the Rules 
Regulating the Florida Bar regarding disbarred attorneys who work as paralegals.  
He had no choice and would have been in further violation if he had not complied 
with the rules.  Compliance with the rules is absolutely mandatory.  See R. 
Regulating Fla. Bar 3-6.1(f)(an employee “shall” submit sworn, quarterly reports 
to the Bar).  As provided in Florida Bar Admission Rule 3-13(g), “[m]erely 
showing that an individual is now living as and doing those things he or she should 
have done throughout life, although necessary to prove rehabilitation, does not 
prove that the individual has undertaken a useful and constructive place in 
society.”  The evaluation here falls far short of the expectations for those having 
the privilege of admission to The Florida Bar.  
Rule 3-13(g) also states that the “requirement of positive action is 
appropriate for applicants for admission to the Bar because service to one's 
community is an implied obligation of members of the Bar.”  McMahan has 
dedicated time to Teen Court and the Volusia County Literacy Society.  He 
estimated that he has volunteered 700 hours for these two organizations.  
Considering that he was disbarred effective 1997, he has volunteered less than two 
hours per week during his period of disbarment, again far less than a convincing 
demonstration.  He simply is not providing service to his community at an 
 
- 8 -
exceptional level that demonstrates rehabilitation.  See Fla. Bar Admiss. R. 3-
13(g).  When McMahan’s volunteer service is compared to his lengthy criminal 
activities involving the distribution of illegal drugs, he falls far short of showing 
that he has been rehabilitated.  Because of the “serious nature of [his] misconduct, 
more is required.”  Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam'rs re N.W.R., 674 So. 2d 729, 731 (Fla. 
1996).  McMahan “must make some extra effort to demonstrate rehabilitation 
sufficient to warrant his admission to the bar.”  Id.  This Court must protect the 
members of the public by demanding and requiring the utmost in professional 
standards for attorneys.  See Fla. Bar v. Cox, 794 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2001); Fla. Bar 
v. Cibula, 725 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 1998).  Our citizens expect more and, most 
assuredly, they deserve more.   
CONCLUSION 
Accordingly, we disapprove the Board’s recommendation that Fred C. 
McMahan be readmitted to The Florida Bar.  He may reapply for admission two 
years from the date of this opinion.   
It is so ordered. 
LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., 
concur. 
ANSTEAD, J., dissents. 
 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
 
- 9 -
 
 
Original Proceeding - The Florida Board of Bar Examiners 
 
Michele A. Gavagni, Executive Director, Thomas A. Pobjecky, General Counsel, 
Florida Board of Bar Examiners, Tallahassee, Florida 
 
 
for Complainant 
 
Fred C. McMahan, pro se, Daytona Beach, Florida, 
 
 
for Respondent 
 
 
- 10 -