Title: Florida Board of Bar Examiners Re: Donald L. Ferguson
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC17-1494
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: May 3, 2018

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC17-1494 
____________ 
 
 
FLORIDA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS RE: DONALD L. FERGUSON. 
 
[May 3, 2018] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
This case is before the Court to review the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of 
Law, and Recommendation of the Florida Board of Bar Examiners (Board) on the 
application of Donald L. Ferguson for readmission to The Florida Bar.  The 
application is Ferguson’s second attempt at readmission following his disciplinary 
resignation from the Bar in 2000.  The Board recommends that Ferguson be 
readmitted to the Bar.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.; see also 
Fla. Bar Admiss. R. 3-23.7.1  For the reasons that follow, we disapprove the 
                                          
 
 
1.  Under Rule of the Supreme Court Relating to Admissions to the Bar (Bar 
Admission Rule) 3-23.7, when the Board issues a favorable recommendation 
regarding an applicant seeking readmission to the practice of law after having been 
disbarred or having resigned while disciplinary proceedings were pending, the 
Board is required to file its report and recommendation with the Court for “final 
action.”     
 
 
- 2 - 
Board’s action on Ferguson’s application and deny him admission to the Bar at this 
time. 
BACKGROUND 
Donald L. Ferguson was admitted to The Florida Bar in 1973.  He worked as 
an assistant U.S. Attorney and then went into private practice as a criminal defense 
lawyer.  In 1995, he was charged in federal court with conspiracy to obstruct 
justice and money laundering.  Ferguson pled guilty to the two charges and was 
sentenced in 1999 to twenty-four months in prison and three years’ supervised 
release.  His conspiracy to obstruct justice conviction was based on him having 
notarized the affidavits of two individuals who had been arrested on drug 
trafficking charges, knowing that the affidavits included false statements and 
would or might be used in judicial proceedings for some fraudulent or deceitful 
purpose.  The affidavits stated that a certain person in Colombia had nothing to do 
with the drug smuggling conspiracy for which the affiants had been arrested.  The 
affidavits were intended to be used either to oppose extradition in Colombia or for 
some other purpose.  One of the arrestees, Ferguson knew, was a high-ranking 
member of a Columbia-based drug-trafficking organization.  Ferguson did not 
represent the persons whose affidavits he notarized.  He notarized the affidavits 
because he was asked to do so by a lawyer associated with a Washington D.C. law 
firm that was sending him lucrative criminal defense cases.  
 
 
- 3 - 
Ferguson’s money laundering conviction stemmed from his receipt of 
$75,000 in cash from an individual associated with the same Washington, D.C. law 
firm that was sending him lucrative cases and in turn passing it on to the wife of a 
criminal defendant to use in obtaining the release of her husband on bond.  He 
delivered the money for the same reason he notarized the false affidavits: because 
he was asked to do so by the people who were sending him lucrative legal business 
and he did not want to “ruffle [their] feathers.”  
Shortly after Ferguson entered his guilty pleas, the Court suspended him 
from the practice of law, effective November 1, 1995.  Following his sentencing in 
1999, the Bar filed a complaint against Ferguson based on his criminal misconduct.  
Ferguson then filed a petition for disciplinary resignation, which the Bar did not 
oppose.  The Court granted the petition and Ferguson was allowed to resign on 
July 13, 2000, effective, nunc pro tunc, November 2, 1995. 
In addition, at about the time he was to be sentenced on the 1995 charges, 
Ferguson was indicted on federal charges of conspiracy to commit money 
laundering and four counts of money laundering.  The indictment charged 
Ferguson with engaging in monetary transactions with criminally derived proceeds 
and was based on his acceptance of about $565,000 in cash to defend a client on a 
charge of first-degree murder.  Ferguson ultimately pled guilty in 2001 to one 
 
 
- 4 - 
count of conspiring to receive and deposit narcotics proceeds, and was sentenced to 
five years’ probation to run concurrently with his supervised release term.   
Ferguson also failed to timely pay his personal federal income taxes for the 
years 1996-2008 and 2010-2011, and had liens filed against him for the tax years 
1996-1999 and 2000-2002.  His failure to meet his federal income tax obligations 
never resulted in criminal charges, only civil penalties.  He has since paid all past-
due taxes and satisfied all liens.  
In February 2016, Ferguson applied for readmission to the Bar, executing an 
updated Bar application.  The updated application is Ferguson’s second attempt at 
obtaining readmission to the Bar; the Court denied his first application by order 
dated February 13, 2014.  Because Ferguson’s updated application and the Board’s 
investigation revealed conduct adversely reflecting on his character and fitness for 
admission to the Bar, the Board held an investigative hearing, after which it filed 
three specifications against Ferguson.  Ferguson filed an answer, and the Board 
conducted a formal hearing.  
Specification 1(A)(i)-(ii) alleged that Ferguson failed to comply with the 
rules of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit governing attorney 
discipline by failing to disclose his criminal convictions and by not disclosing his 
 
 
- 5 - 
disciplinary resignation.2  Specification 2 alleged that Ferguson failed to disclose 
his admission to practice before the First Circuit on his first application for 
readmission to the Bar.  Specification 3 alleged that Ferguson incorrectly stated on 
his updated application for readmission that his authority to practice before the 
First Circuit was terminated due to his criminal convictions, when he never 
actually informed the court of his convictions.   
Ferguson denied each specification.  The Board, except for part of 
Specification 1(A), found each specification proven, but not disqualifying.  
Ferguson asserted his rehabilitation and as evidence thereof, produced eight letters 
of recommendation, as well as excerpts from letters submitted with his first 
application for readmission, attesting to his character, reputation, and professional 
ability.  Three witnesses also testified on Ferguson’s behalf.  One of the witnesses, 
a manager with Boca Helping Hands, an organization that serves the 
underprivileged, testified that Ferguson had volunteered approximately 800 hours 
with the organization since 2011.  Logs and other materials documenting 
Ferguson’s volunteer work with the organization indicate he volunteered a total of 
791 hours between 2011 and 2017.  Ferguson testified that he volunteered 
approximately 600 hours with Habitat for Humanity between 2001 and 2006, and 
                                          
 
 
2.  The Board withdrew Specification 1(B) at the formal hearing.  
 
 
- 6 - 
that he had made regular financial contributions to his church and other charitable 
organizations.  In addition, Ferguson put on a presentation for a law school ethics 
class in 2011 in which he described his legal career, illegal activities, and efforts 
toward rehabilitation. 
Based on the evidence and testimony presented at the formal hearing, the 
Board found that Ferguson had demonstrated his rehabilitation by clear and 
convincing evidence.  The Board recommends that Ferguson be readmitted to the 
Bar.  
ANALYSIS 
In a Bar admission proceeding, the burden is upon the applicant to 
demonstrate his or her good moral character.  See Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs re 
H.H.S., 373 So. 2d 890, 891 (Fla. 1979).  This Court has held that disbarment alone 
is disqualifying for admission to the Bar unless an applicant can show clear and 
convincing evidence of rehabilitation.  See Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs re Papy, 901 
So. 2d 870, 872 (Fla. 2005).  In determining whether an applicant has sufficiently 
demonstrated rehabilitation, the “nature and seriousness of the offense are to be 
weighed against the evidence of rehabilitation.”  Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs re 
M.L.B., 766 So. 2d 994, 996 (Fla. 2000) (quoting Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs re 
D.M.J., 586 So. 2d 1049, 1050 (Fla. 1991)).  The “more serious the misconduct, 
 
 
- 7 - 
the greater the showing of rehabilitation that will be required.”  Fla. Bd. of Bar 
Exam’rs re J.J.T., 761 So. 2d 1094, 1096 (Fla. 2000). 
Here, the Board’s findings as to each specification are supported by the 
record and the sole issue before this Court is whether Ferguson has clearly and 
convincingly established his rehabilitation.  Ferguson’s prior conduct is appalling.  
He repeatedly chose to disregard his professional and ethical obligations as a 
member of the Bar so as to not disrupt a lucrative business relationship.  His 
conviction for conspiracy to obstruct justice is particularly egregious in that it 
involved a flagrant act of dishonesty and his knowing participation in an apparent 
scheme to present false information to a court.  Such acts undermine the very 
foundation of the legal profession and the judicial process, both of which Ferguson 
had an obligation as a member of the Bar to respect and uphold.  His disregard of 
this fundamental obligation for pecuniary purposes requires that he make an 
extraordinary showing of rehabilitation.  See Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs re 
McMahan, 944 So. 2d 335, 338 (Fla. 2006) (applicant required to make 
extraordinary showing of evidence of rehabilitation based on prior involvement in 
illegal drug operation and convictions for conspiracy to conduct money laundering 
and conspiracy to obstruct justice). 
Ferguson produced evidence with respect to each applicable element of 
rehabilitation in Bar Admission Rule 3-13.  Having reviewed the record and the 
 
 
- 8 - 
Board’s report, we find that Ferguson failed to produce sufficient evidence of 
positive action under Bar Admission Rule 3-13(g).  That rule requires that an 
applicant demonstrate: 
[P]ositive action showing rehabilitation by occupation, 
religion, or community or civic service.  Merely 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 requirement of positive action is 
appropriate for applicants for admission to The Florida 
Bar because service to one’s community is an implied 
obligation of members of The Florida Bar. 
 
Fla. Bar Admiss R. 3-13(g).  
Ferguson produced logs and other materials documenting his volunteer work 
with Boca Helping Hands that indicate he volunteered about 791 hours with the 
organization between 2011 and 2017.  He did not, however, produce comparable 
documentation with respect to his volunteer work with Habitat for Humanity.  
Ferguson produced documentation identifying the dates he volunteered with 
Habitat for Humanity and the tasks performed, but did not produce any 
documentation identifying the number of hours he volunteered with the 
organization.  As with all applicants seeking to establish their rehabilitation from 
prior misconduct, Ferguson was required to document his positive action with a 
degree of specificity.  See Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs re J.J.J., 682 So. 2d 544, 545 
(Fla. 1996) (applicant failed to sufficiently document positive action).  This 
 
 
- 9 - 
includes not only documenting the type of positive action performed and when it 
occurred, but the number of hours spent engaged in it. 
Based on the foregoing, Ferguson engaged in 791 hours of documented 
positive action between 2011 and 2017, an average of about 131.8 hours per year 
or 2.5 hours per week.  Such a showing, while commendable, is hardly 
extraordinary, particularly when weighed against his prior misconduct.  The same 
is true even if this Court were to consider Ferguson’s purported 600 hours of 
volunteer work with Habitat for Humanity in addition to the 791 hours he 
volunteered with Boca Helping Hands, a combined total of 1,391 hours for the 
sixteen-year period between 2001 and 2017, an average of about 86.9 hours per 
year.  Simply put, Ferguson’s evidence of positive action fails to clearly and 
convincingly establish that he put forth the extra effort to overcome his past 
mistakes.  See McMahan, 944 So. 2d at 339; M.L.B., 766 So. 2d at 998 
(“Applicants attempting to overcome past misconduct must show some extra effort 
in order to demonstrate rehabilitation sufficient to warrant admission to the bar.”)  
(emphasis added).  “Because of the ‘serious nature of [his] misconduct, more is 
required’ ” of Ferguson.  McMahan, 944 So. 2d at 339 (quoting Fla. Bd. of Bar 
Exam’rs re N.W.R., 674 So. 2d 729, 731 (Fla. 1996)).   
CONCLUSION 
 
 
- 10 - 
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we disapprove the Board’s 
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation, and deny Donald L. 
Ferguson admission to The Florida Bar at this time.  He may reapply for admission 
after two years from August 9, 2017, the date of the Board’s recommendation.  See 
Fla. Bar Admiss. R. 3-23.6(d). 
It is so ordered.  
LABARGA, C.J., and LEWIS, CANADY, and POLSTON, JJ., concur. 
LAWSON, J., dissents with an opinion, in which PARIENTE and QUINCE, JJ., 
concur. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
LAWSON, J., dissenting. 
 
Now 71 years old, Donald L. Ferguson has not practiced law in Florida for 
over 22 years, since his suspension by order of this Court, effective November 1, 
1995.  Mr. Ferguson was admitted to the Maine Bar in 2010 and remains a member 
in good standing there.  After an evidentiary hearing, the Board of Bar Examiners 
unanimously found that Ferguson had established his “rehabilitation” and his 
“unimpeachable character and moral standing in the community” by clear and 
convincing evidence, along with every other applicable requirement for 
readmission set forth in Bar Admission Rules 3-12 (Determination of Present 
Character) and 3-13 (Elements of Rehabilitation).  Those findings, detailed in the 
Board’s 43-page report and recommendation, are amply supported by the record 
 
 
- 11 - 
and therefore should be approved.  See Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs re R.L.W., 793 So. 
2d 918, 923, 925 (Fla. 2001) (“[T]he Board’s findings of fact should be approved if 
they are supported by competent substantial evidence in the record.”).  Accepting 
the Board’s findings, I would also approve the recommendation that flows from 
those findings. 
 
Given the serious nature of Mr. Ferguson’s past conduct, I could understand 
a decision to never consider readmitting Ferguson to the Bar, see, e.g.,  Fla. Bd. of 
Bar Exam’rs re Castro, 87 So. 3d 699, 702 (Fla. 2012) (stating that no amount of 
rehabilitation would ever be sufficient to readmit applicant who participated in 
scheme involving bribery and kickbacks to sitting judge), but I believe that the 
time to have done that would have been when Ferguson was last rejected for 
readmission, at the latest.  Given that we have permitted Ferguson to reapply, and 
in consideration of the amount of time that has passed since Ferguson’s 
misconduct, Ferguson’s age and work history since his suspension (work that 
appears to have been necessary to enable Ferguson to pay his substantial debt to 
the federal government, which he has done), and the Board’s character and 
rehabilitation findings, I do not understand quibbling about whether 791 hours of 
volunteer service with Boca Helping Hands between 2011 and 2017 (and 
additional hours with Habitat for Humanity) constitute sufficient “extra effort to 
overcome his past mistakes.”  Majority op. at 9.  In addition, notions of 
 
 
- 12 - 
fundamental fairness dictate that if the basis for our rejection of Mr. Ferguson’s 
application for readmission is really too few community service hours, we should 
at least tell him how many hours we think it would take, in the next two years, to 
atone for his past misconduct.  Without that type of guidance, in the rules or 
elsewhere, the decision to reject Ferguson’s application for readmission on this 
basis alone appears unsettlingly arbitrary. 
PARIENTE and QUINCE, JJ., concur. 
Original Proceedings – Florida Board of Bar Examiners 
Elizabeth J. Walters, Chair, Michele A. Gavagni, Executive Director, and James T. 
Almon, General Counsel, Florida Board of Bar Examiners, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Petitioner 
 
John A. Weiss of Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Respondent