Title: Florida Board Of Bar Examiners Re: O.C.M.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC02-2195
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: June 26, 2003

Supreme Court of Florida
____________
No. SC02-2195
____________
FLORIDA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS RE: O.C.M.
[June 26, 2003]
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner O.C.M. asks this Court to review the recommendations of the
Florida Board of Bar Examiners (Board).  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 15,
Fla. Const.  For the reasons expressed below, we approve the Board's
recommendation that O.C.M. not be admitted to The Florida Bar at this time and
that he be disqualified from reapplying for admission for three years.
On April 28, 2000, O.C.M. executed an application for admission to The
Florida Bar.  The Board's background investigation revealed certain matters
-2-
concerning O.C.M.'s character and fitness.  On October 5, 2001, formal
specifications were served upon O.C.M. 
Specification 1 alleged that O.C.M. altered letters of recommendation written
for him by two attorneys at a law firm at which O.C.M. had been employed to
falsely reflect that he had been employed as a paralegal rather than a
runner/messenger, and that he submitted the altered letters to various law schools to
which he was applying for admission.  Specification 2 alleged that O.C.M. falsely
stated on an application for admission to the School of Law at Southern Illinois
University at Carbondale that he had been employed for six months as a full-time
paralegal with the law firm.  Specification 3 alleged that on his application for
admission to the University of Orlando School of Law (now Barry University
School of Law), O.C.M. improperly failed to disclose his attendance at two
schools and failed to disclose five prior jobs, including his employment with the
law firm.  Specification 3 also alleged that in a letter to the dean of Barry University
School of Law to correct the inaccuracies in his original application, O.C.M.
admitted altering the letters of recommendation, but falsely claimed that he had
changed only one word.  Specification 4 alleged that on his application for
admission to The Florida Bar, O.C.M. provided a similar false and misleading
explanation of his alteration of the letters of recommendation.  Specification 5
-3-
alleged that at his investigative hearing on July 14, 2001, O.C.M. gave a false or
misleading explanation of his alteration of the letters of recommendation in that he
again claimed he changed just one word on the letters, but then later admitted that
he changed more than one word and had, in fact, completely retyped the body of
the letters.  Specification 5 also alleged that O.C.M. gave testimony which was
false, misleading or lacking in candor at his investigative hearing in that he falsely
claimed that the reason for the omissions in the employment history on his
application for admission to Barry University was that he had copied that history
from an application he had previously submitted to an agency of the State of
Florida.  The specification alleged that this explanation was false because the
employment history listed on the agency application was not the same as that listed
on the Barry University application.  Specification 6 alleged that on a 1995 State of
Florida Employment Application, O.C.M. improperly failed to disclose his
attendance at two colleges and failed to disclose four prior jobs. 
After a formal hearing, the Board found that all of the specifications had been
proven and were disqualifying for admission to the bar.  The Board also found that
O.C.M. displayed a continuing lack of candor during his formal hearing testimony. 
Based on this finding and the proven allegations of Specifications 4 and 5 dealing
with O.C.M.'s lack of candor on his bar application and in his investigative hearing
-4-
testimony, the Board concluded that O.C.M. had made material misrepresentations
or false statements in the bar application process; thus, pursuant to rule 3-23.6(d)
of the Rules of the Supreme Court Relating to Admissions to the Bar, the Board
recommended that O.C.M. be disqualified from reapplying for admission for three
years.  
O.C.M. does not dispute any of the Board's factual findings or its
recommendation that he not be admitted to the bar at this time.  He challenges only
the Board's recommendation that he be disqualified from reapplying for admission
for three years.   
The Rules of the Supreme Court Relating to Admissions to the Bar provide
for a standard two-year period following denial of admission during which an
applicant may not reapply.  See Fla. Bar Admiss. R. 2-13.5.  Rule 3-23.6(d),
however, permits the Board, within its discretion, to recommend an extended
disqualification period in cases involving material misrepresentations in the
application process.  Here, the Board found that on his bar application, O.C.M.
gave a false and misleading explanation of his conduct concerning the falsified
recommendation letters and that he testified falsely as to this incident at both his
investigative and formal hearings.  Specifically, the Board found that O.C.M.
testified falsely at his investigative hearing when he claimed that he changed only
1. To the extent that O.C.M. takes issue with the Board's rejection of his
formal hearing testimony as unworthy of belief, this is a question of credibility—a
question upon which we defer to the Board.  See Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam'rs re
R.L.W., 793 So. 2d 918, 923 (Fla. 2001) (stating that the Court usually defers to
the Board's findings on a witness's credibility because the Board has had the
opportunity to observe the witness during testimony).  
-5-
one word of the letters.  The Board also rejected as unworthy of belief O.C.M.'s
testimony at his formal hearing that despite the fact that the letters had clearly been
completely retyped and changed in numerous ways, he only remembered changing
one word.  
O.C.M. does not challenge the factual basis for the Board's
recommendation;1 rather, he argues that the conduct is not serious enough to
warrant a three-year disqualification. We disagree.  Any material omission or
misrepresentation made in the application process for admission to The Florida Bar
is a serious matter.  Here, O.C.M. engaged in a pattern of dishonesty and half-
truths in attempting to explain a very serious instance of misconduct on his
part—the falsification of letters of recommendation which he then submitted as part
of his application for admission to various law schools.  Such a lack of candor by
an applicant seeking admission to The Florida Bar is intolerable.  O.C.M.'s conduct
clearly falls within rule 3-23.6(d), and the Board was justified in recommending an
extended disqualification period. 
-6-
Accordingly, we approve the Board's recommendation that O.C.M. be
denied admission to The Florida Bar at this time.  Further, in light of O.C.M.'s
material  misrepresentations in the bar admission process, we approve the Board's
recommendation that O.C.M. be disqualified from reapplying for admission for
three years. 
It is so ordered.  
ANSTEAD, C.J., and WELLS, PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and
BELL, JJ., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND
IF FILED, DETERMINED.
Original Proceeding - Florida Board of Bar Examiners
Richard A. Greenberg, Tallahassee, Florida,
for Petitioner
Michael J. Keane, Chair, Eleanor Mitchell Hunter, Executive Director, and Thomas
A. Pobjecky, General Counsel, Tallahassee, Florida,
for Florida Board of Bar Examiners, Respondent