Title: Florida Board of Bar Examiners Re: William Castro
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC10-2439
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: February 9, 2012

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC10-2439 
____________ 
 
 
FLORIDA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS RE: WILLIAM CASTRO 
 
[February 9, 2012] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
This case is before the Court on the petition of William Castro seeking 
review of the Florida Board of Bar Examiners’ Findings of Fact, Conclusions of 
Law, and Recommendation on his application for admission to The Florida Bar.  
We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.  For the reasons expressed 
below, we approve the Board’s action regarding Castro’s application and 
permanently deny him admission to the Bar. 
BACKGROUND 
 
William Castro was admitted to The Florida Bar in 1981 and practiced law 
as a criminal defense attorney.  He was later charged and convicted in federal court 
on several felony charges, including bribery.  As a result of his criminal 
conviction, in April 1994 the Court entered an order suspending Castro from the 
practice of law in Florida, and ultimately disbarred him in November 1998, 
 
 
- 2 - 
effective, nunc pro tunc, May 12, 1994, and prohibited him from seeking 
readmission for a period of ten years.  See Fla. Bar v. Castro, 728 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 
1998). 
 
In December 2007, Castro executed an application for readmission to the 
Bar.  He has successfully completed all portions of the Florida Bar Examination.  
However, during its background investigation, the Board identified certain 
information that reflected adversely on Castro’s character and fitness.  Following 
an investigative hearing, the Board served Castro with three Specifications.  Castro 
filed an answer to these Specifications.  A public formal hearing was held in July 
2010.   
 
Specification 1 concerns Castro’s criminal charges and conviction.  It alleges 
that in 1988, Castro was approached by Judge Roy Gelber, who had the authority 
to appoint him as a court-appointed defense attorney for defendants appearing in 
Judge Gelber’s courtroom.  Judge Gelber offered to give Castro numerous court 
appointments as a ―Special Assistant Public Defender‖ in exchange for a 
percentage of the money Castro earned from the appointments.  Castro agreed to 
participate in this arrangement.  He was later charged in federal court with one 
count of conspiracy to commit racketeering, twenty-seven counts of mail fraud, 
and one count of bribery.  Castro was convicted of the charges (except he was 
acquitted on one count of mail fraud).  On March 17, 1994, he was sentenced to 
 
 
- 3 - 
serve thirty-seven months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release.  
Castro has served his sentence, and his civil rights were restored in 2006.  Castro 
admitted the allegations contained in Specification 1.  Accordingly, the Board 
found these allegations were proven and were individually disqualifying for 
admission to The Florida Bar. 
 
Specification 2 concerns Castro’s suspension and disbarment.  On April 12, 
1994, this Court initially entered an order suspending Castro from the practice of 
law.  Later, the Bar filed a formal Complaint against him alleging the following 
violations of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar (Bar Rules): 4-3.5(a) (a lawyer 
shall not seek to influence a judge, juror, prospective juror, or other decision maker 
except as permitted by law or the rules of court); 4-8.4(b) (a lawyer shall not 
commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, 
trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer); 4-8.4(c) (a lawyer shall not engage in 
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); 4-8.4(d) (a 
lawyer shall not engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is 
prejudicial to the administration of justice); and 4-8.4(f) (a lawyer shall not 
knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is in violation of 
applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law).  In August 1998, Castro 
submitted a Conditional Guilty Plea for Consent Judgment.  Following the consent 
judgment, on November 12, 1998, the Court entered an order disbarring Castro 
 
 
- 4 - 
from the practice of law with a ban on seeking readmission for ten years effective, 
nunc pro tunc, May 12, 1994.  Castro also admitted the allegations in Specification 
2.  The Board found these allegations were proven and were individually 
disqualifying for admission to the Bar. 
 
In Specification 3, the Board alleged that Castro’s Conditional Guilty Plea 
for Consent Judgment included certain false or misleading statements.  However, 
the Board found that these allegations were not proven. 
 
In his answer to the Specifications, Castro pled the affirmative defense of 
rehabilitation.  He presented substantial evidence in this regard, including twenty-
three witnesses who testified on his behalf at the public formal hearing.  Castro 
also testified at the hearing.  He estimated that he has dedicated about 13,300 hours 
to community service over the last eighteen years.  He has participated in a variety 
of community service activities, including volunteer work with his church; 
teaching confirmation classes; serving as a foster parent and as a member of a 
foster care review panel; working as a Guardian ad Litem in the Criminal Law 
Project; and organizing a Continuing Legal Education series for the Bar called, 
―My Faith in Practice.‖ 
 
Based on the evidence and testimony presented at the formal hearing, the 
Board found that the allegations in Specification 1 and 2 were proven, and were 
individually disqualifying from readmission to the Bar.  The Board also found that 
 
 
- 5 - 
Castro’s presentation failed to mitigate the seriousness of his misconduct.  In 
particular, the Board noted the ―egregious nature‖ of Castro’s actions, stating, ―The 
applicant’s criminal actions covered an extended period of time and involved 
multiple kickbacks to a judge.‖  Accordingly, the Board concluded ―that no 
amount of rehabilitation will ever suffice to allow the applicant’s readmission to 
the Florida legal profession that he dishonored when he participated in the 
corruption of the judicial system that he had sworn as an officer of the court to 
respect and uphold.‖  The Board recommends that Castro be permanently 
precluded from seeking readmission to The Florida Bar.  Castro has petitioned this 
Court for review. 
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).  We have previously 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 
 
 
- 6 - 
D.M.J., 586 So. 2d 1049, 1050 (Fla. 1991)).  Thus, the ―more serious the 
misconduct, 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 determined that no amount of rehabilitation would ever be 
sufficient to warrant readmitting Castro to the Bar.  We agree.  As a member of the 
Bar in this state, Castro had an obligation to respect and uphold the judicial system 
and the legal profession.  He violated this obligation when he participated in a 
scheme involving bribery and kickbacks to a sitting judge.  This type of 
misconduct, involving corruption within the legal system, is particularly egregious.  
It is clear that since his criminal conviction and disbarment, Castro has engaged in 
thousands of hours of community service, benefiting both his church and the legal 
community as a whole, in an effort to show his rehabilitation.  While his 
commitment to community service is admirable, we agree with the Board’s 
conclusion that no demonstration of rehabilitation would ever suffice to allow 
Castro’s readmission to the legal profession.  Cf. Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs re 
W.F.H., 933 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 2006) (―[T]he total circumstances and underlying 
facts of the instant case, which involve misconduct by a sworn law enforcement 
officer, are so egregious and extreme, and impact so adversely on the character and 
fitness of W.F.H., that the recommendation of the Florida Board of Bar Examiners 
must be approved.  We further conclude that under the totality of the 
 
 
- 7 - 
circumstances, the grievous nature of the misconduct mandates that W.F.H. not be 
admitted to the Bar now or at any time in the future.‖) 
CONCLUSION 
 
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we approve the Board’s 
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation, and permanently 
deny William Castro admission to The Florida Bar. 
 
It is so ordered. 
CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, 
and PERRY, JJ., concur. 
PARIENTE, J., specially concurs with an opinion. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
 
 
PARIENTE, J., specially concurring. 
 
I have struggled with this case.  On the one hand, the conduct giving rise to 
this petition clearly undermines the public’s trust in the judicial system.  On the 
other hand, as former Justice Raoul Cantero testified, William Castro’s case is 
―one where [he has] seen more rehabilitation over a greater period of time than any 
other case.‖  Indeed, it was not just Raoul Cantero who testified on Castro’s behalf.  
Castro submitted letters from 190 individuals and presented many witnesses who 
testified in favor of his readmission to the Florida Bar, all setting forth specific 
examples of how he has demonstrated extraordinary conduct. 
 
 
- 8 - 
The witnesses who testified at Castro’s hearing included many leaders in the 
legal and judicial community, including: Arturo Alvarez; Francisco Angones; 
David Rothman; Circuit Judge Beatrice Butchko; Circuit Judge Stanford Blake; 
Circuit Judge Diane Ward; and now Circuit Judge Victoria Brennan.  Each 
described Castro as a changed person and recommended his readmission without 
hesitancy.  Judge Blake, who has known Castro since he was a young attorney, 
testified that he was ―absolutely convinced Willie is a very good person that made 
a very bad mistake.‖ 
 
The evidence established that Castro logged over 13,000 hours of 
community service during the past eighteen years—equivalent to an impressive 
700 hours of service per year.  He has volunteered for the Guardian ad Litem 
(GAL) program, where he has been described as a ―wonderful asset.‖  The Senior 
Staff Attorney of the criminal court’s GAL program recounted several different 
cases on which Castro served.  She believed that Castro’s efforts in one GAL case 
saved a child’s life and further described him as a ―relentless advocate‖ and 
―meticulous.‖   
Castro is also a licensed foster-care parent, and he and his wife later adopted 
each of the three children they had fostered.  The judge who approved the 
adoptions described how she ―grew to admire and respect Willie‖ and had ―no 
doubt that he would be a very positive member of the Bar.‖  Castro has led CLE 
 
 
- 9 - 
seminars in which he has taken ―accountability for what he has done.‖  One 
witness who previously worked with Castro in organizing a seminar involving 
ethics and the law stated that during the time she has known him, Castro made her 
―want to be a better lawyer.‖  Another witness testified as to his service to the 
community, and especially to children, describing him as a ―person that is just 
doing everything that he can to be able to give to people, to give of himself, of his 
time, of his talent, and to really make a difference in people’s lives.‖  Further, 
Castro has organized programs for migrant children, and one witness testified that 
these migrant children ―wouldn’t have anything or much if it wasn’t for the efforts 
that Willie Castro had done.‖ 
By all accounts, Castro has lived an exemplary life since his criminal 
charges, felony convictions, and prison sentence.  Based on what I perceive to be 
overwhelming evidence of his rehabilitation, I would state that Castro has 
demonstrated all seven elements of rehabilitation required by Rule 3-13 of the Bar 
Admission Rules for admission when the applicant has previously engaged in 
disqualifying conduct.  Given his rehabilitation, the question I have struggled with 
is whether the conduct that led to Castro’s ten-year disbarment qualifies as the type 
of conduct for which no amount of rehabilitation will ever suffice to earn him 
readmission to the Bar. 
 
 
- 10 - 
In essence, the Court’s pronouncement today is a decision to change 
Castro’s sanction of a ten-year disbarment imposed in 1994 to one of a permanent 
disbarment.1  After careful consideration of the circumstances involved here, and 
despite the evidence of Castro’s rehabilitation, I have ultimately come down on the 
side of agreeing with the Board and the majority that the crimes in this case—
egregious acts of corruption, which stem from the bribery of a judge and the 
receipt of multiple kickbacks from that judge over an extensive period of time—so 
dishonored our judicial system that ―no demonstration of rehabilitation would ever 
suffice to allow Castro’s readmission to the legal profession.‖  Majority op. at 6.  
In reaching this decision, I have considered the other side of this equation—that it 
was the judge who approached Castro and that there is no evidence Castro handled 
the cases to which he was appointed in any way other than in a professional 
manner.  Nevertheless, I am unable to cast aside my concern that the essential 
illegality at issue here goes to the very core of our public’s trust and confidence in 
the judicial system. 
Although this judgment of permanent disbarment may appear to be harsh, 
we must always remember that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege, and 
                                         
 
1.  I do not believe a sanction of permanent disbarment is necessarily 
warranted in all situations where applicants commit felonies prior to admission.  In 
my view, the imposition of the sanction of permanent disbarment can vary 
depending on the type of felony and the circumstances under which it was 
committed. 
 
 
- 11 - 
it was Castro’s own illegal actions that caused his downfall.  I would hope that 
Castro will still be motivated to continue his involvement in the wonderful 
community activities that have been described by his scores of supporters and that 
he will continue to teach others the lessons that he has learned.  While these 
lessons may be too late in his case, Castro’s efforts may encourage, inspire, and 
motivate others to be better lawyers and human beings, all of whom may look at 
each day as an opportunity to give back to our community in a meaningful way. 
 
 
 
 
Original Proceeding – The Florida Board of Bar Examiners 
 
Jerry M. Gewirtz, Chair, Michele A. Gavagni, Executive Director, and Thomas 
Arthur Pobjecky, General Counsel, the Florida Board of Bar Examiners, 
Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Petitioner 
 
Bruce S. Rogow and Cynthia E. Gunther of Bruce S. Rogow, P.A., Fort 
Lauderdale, Florida, 
 
 
for Respondent