Title: Florida Board Of Bar Examiners Re: Stephen A. Papy, Sr.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC04-1411
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: April 28, 2005

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC04-1411 
____________ 
 
 
FLORIDA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS  
RE: STEPHEN A. PAPY, SR. 
 
[April 28, 2005] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
Stephen A. Papy, Sr., has petitioned this Court to review the 
recommendation of the Florida Board of Bar Examiners that he be denied 
readmission to The Florida Bar.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.   
For the reasons expressed below, we approve the Board's recommendation that 
Papy not be readmitted to the Bar at this time.   
BACKGROUND 
Papy was originally admitted to the practice of law in Florida in 1984.  By 
order of this Court dated January 15, 1998, the Court granted Papy's petition for 
disciplinary resignation with leave to seek readmission after three years. 
Papy sought readmission to the Bar by filing with the Board an Application 
for Admission to the Bar on June 29, 2001.  During the course of the Board's 
character and fitness investigation, certain items of information reflecting 
 
- 2 -
adversely on Papy's character and fitness were discovered.  Following an 
investigative hearing, the Board served specifications upon Papy. 
Specification 1 recounted the circumstances surrounding Papy's disciplinary 
resignation from the Bar.  This specification provided that from the early 1990’s 
until his resignation, Papy practiced law primarily as a sole practitioner.  
Specification 1(a) alleged that during his time as a sole practitioner, Papy 
misappropriated funds from one or more clients and used the funds to pay for 
office operating expenses.  Specification 1(b) alleged that during the mid-1990’s 
Papy acquired substantial funds on behalf of client Ewart Rose.  According to this 
specification, Papy failed to provide Rose with all of his funds, withholding at least 
$500,000.  Papy drafted a letter which Rose signed at Papy’s request allowing 
Papy to set up an irrevocable trust for Rose’s undisbursed funds with Papy serving 
as trustee.  The letter further authorized Papy to invest the funds by making loans 
to himself.  Papy used at least $500,000 of Rose’s funds to satisfy personal 
obligations.  Papy was subsequently unable to repay Rose, requiring Rose to file a 
civil action against Papy.  Specification 1(c) alleged that as a result of a complaint 
filed by Rose, the Bar conducted an audit of Papy’s trust account.  The audit 
confirmed improprieties, including the issuance of checks that were returned for 
insufficient funds.  Papy filed a petition for disciplinary resignation, which was 
approved by this Court on January 15, 1998. 
 
- 3 -
Specification 2 alleged that Papy exhibited a pattern of irresponsibility or 
lack of respect for the law as evidenced by the following:  (a) Papy’s failure to 
timely file federal income tax returns for the years 1994-98, for which Papy was 
assessed a late filing penalty by the IRS for one or more of those years; (b) Papy’s 
failure to timely pay income taxes for the years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, and 
2000, for which Papy was assessed a failure to pay penalty by the IRS for one or 
more of those years; (c) the filing of a Notice of Federal Tax Lien against Papy 
setting forth an unpaid balance of $69,822.49 in 1040 taxes for tax years 1990 and 
1991; (d) the filing of a Notice of Federal Tax Lien against Papy setting forth an 
unpaid balance of $55,363.09 in 1040 taxes for tax year 1995; and (e) the filing of 
a Notice of Federal Tax Lien against Papy setting forth an unpaid balance of 
$161,787.64 in 1040 taxes for tax year 1996.  This specification further noted that 
while Papy satisfied and was released from the lien for years 1990 and 1991, the 
liens for 1995 and 1996 remain unsatisfied.1 
Papy admitted Specifications 1 and 2, and the Board found that these 
specifications were proven.  The Board found that Specification 1 was individually 
disqualifying and Specification 2, when considered with the other proven 
specification, was collectively disqualifying.   
                                          
 
 
1.  The Board alleged a third specification against Papy, but ultimately 
concluded that it was not proven. 
 
- 4 -
At the formal hearing, Papy presented the following evidence to establish his 
rehabilitation: several record exhibits consisting of three certificates of 
appreciation for coaching childrens’ baseball, three character affidavits, and two 
character letters.  Six character witnesses testified on Papy's behalf.  Papy also 
testified on his own behalf. 
The Board concluded that the evidence presented by Papy at his formal 
hearing failed to mitigate the seriousness of the proven specifications.  The Board 
further concluded that Papy's presentation at the formal hearing failed to establish 
Papy's rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence as is required by Florida 
Bar Admission Rule 3-13.  In reaching this conclusion, the Board noted the 
egregiousness of Papy’s misconduct in loaning himself $500,000 from a client’s 
trust funds and Papy’s disregard of federal tax laws and regulations over an 
extended period dating back to 1994.  The Board stated that to demonstrate 
rehabilitation, Papy would have had to demonstrate that he is addressing his past 
and present tax obligations.  However, the Board found that Papy’s disregard for 
the law has continued in that he has unpaid taxes of $10,000 from 2002, and he has 
not made any quarterly deposits to pay his 2003 taxes even though his current 
income is $10,000 per month.    
The Board also concluded that Papy had failed to present sufficient evidence 
of restitution.  The Board noted that Papy’s insurance company satisfied the 
$680,000 judgment that client Rose obtained against Papy.  Although Papy 
 
- 5 -
recognized a moral and legal obligation to repay the insurance company, he has not 
made any such payments.  Further, although Papy testified that he believes client 
Rose has not been made whole, Papy did not give Rose any of the proceeds from 
the approximately $200,000 that Papy received as a personal settlement from 
another matter.  
Finally, while the Board commended Papy on his activities with his church, 
including involvement in a festival to benefit the poor, the Board concluded far 
more positive action was required to demonstrate rehabilitation in light of Papy’s 
serious misconduct.  The Board recommended that Papy not be admitted to the Bar 
and that he be disqualified for reapplying for admission for a period of two years 
from the date of the Board’s findings.  Papy seeks review of the Board’s 
recommendation. 
ANALYSIS 
In the instant case, we need not even reach the issue of whether Papy has 
demonstrated rehabilitation because we conclude that the seriousness of his past 
misconduct and his continued failure to be financially responsible with regard to 
his own finances as well as in his dealings with others disqualify him from 
admission to the Bar.   
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 Examr’s re J.T.T., 761 So. 2d 1094, 1096 (Fla. 
 
- 6 -
2000); R. Regulating Fla. Bar 3-5.1(j) (providing that disciplinary resignation is 
the functional equivalent of disbarment).  The misconduct that prompted Papy’s 
disciplinary resignation included a theft of $500,000 of client funds from a 
vulnerable victim.  Even more disturbing is the fact that these funds were to be 
used to obtain an organ transplant for the client.  This Court has held that "[i]n the 
hierarchy of offenses for which lawyers may be disciplined, stealing from a client 
must be among those at the very top of the list."  Fla. Bar v. Korones, 752 So. 2d 
586, 589 (Fla. 2000) (quoting Fla. Bar v. Golub, 550 So. 2d 455, 456 (Fla. 1989)).   
Papy simply has not made adequate progress in rectifying his financial 
irresponsibility for this Court to even consider his admission to the Bar at this time.  
At the hearing before the Board, Papy testified that even now he owes the federal 
government $10,000 for the 2002 tax year, although he receives a salary of over 
$100,000 a year.  Despite this salary, Papy testified at the hearing that his sister-in-
law was going to pay his 2003 taxes for him.  Papy’s continuing irresponsibility is 
especially troubling in light of the fact that it was his reckless disregard in 
spending money that thrust him into dire financial straits and led to the 
misappropriation of client funds.    
Further, Papy has not engaged in any effort whatsoever to make whole the 
others who suffered financial consequences as a result of his misconduct.  Papy 
admitted that he has never attempted to make restitution to the insurance company 
that paid client Rose’s settlement even though Papy testified that he believed he 
 
- 7 -
should repay that money expended.  Further, although Papy testified he believed 
that Rose had not been made whole, Papy has never paid Rose any money.  Papy 
justifies his failure to repay by noting that releases were signed by Papy, Rose, and 
the insurance carrier.  While it is clearly a legal option to not repay money to an 
individual or an entity when a claim has been settled, Papy's complete lack of any 
proactive attempt to correct his past wrongs with Rose and the insurance carrier 
belies his assertion that he possesses the character and fitness to resume the 
practice of law.  Until and unless Papy makes a concerted effort to become 
personally financially responsible and accountable to those that he has harmed 
through his misconduct, he should not be successful in his attempts to be 
readmitted to The Florida Bar.   
CONCLUSION 
For these reasons, we approve the Board's recommendation that Stephen A. 
Papy, Sr., be denied admission to The Florida Bar at this time.  He may reapply for 
admission after two years from the date of the Board's adverse recommendation.  
It is so ordered. 
PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and 
BELL, JJ., concur. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
 
 
 
- 8 -
Original Proceeding - The Florida Board of Bar Examiners 
 
Juan P. Bauta, II, Coral Gables, Florida, 
 
 
for Petitioner 
 
Gloretta H. Hall, Chair, Eleanor Mitchell Hunter, Executive Director and Thomas 
A. Pobjecky, General Counsel, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Florida Board of Bar Examiners, Respondent