Title: Florida Board of Bar Examiners Re: T.J.F.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC96-374
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: November 2, 2000

Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
 
____________
No. SC96374
____________
FLORIDA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS
RE:  T.J.F.
[November 2, 2000]
PER CURIAM.
Respondent T.J.F. petitions this Court to review the recommendation of the
Florida Board of Bar Examiners that her admission to The Florida Bar be denied. 
We have jurisdiction.  Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.  For the reasons expressed below,
we approve the Board’s recommendation that T.J.F. not be admitted at this time;
however, it is our view that she should be permitted to enhance her rehabilitative
efforts and reapply for admission in one year.
FACTS
On April 25, 1997, T.J.F. submitted an application for admission to The
Florida Bar.  During the course of the Florida Board of Bar Examiners' character
-2-
and fitness investigation, certain items of information reflecting adversely on
T.J.F.'s character and fitness were discovered.  After an investigative hearing, the
Board filed specifications against T.J.F.  
Specification 1 alleged that on May 22, 1994, T.J.F. unlawfully obtained a
refund in the amount of $92.28 from a department store for a purse that she had not
purchased.  T.J.F. also unlawfully removed a $155.00 wallet from the store.  In
response to the charge of retail theft, T.J.F. executed a deferred prosecution
agreement with the State Attorney.  Upon completion of this agreement, a nolle
prosse was entered on the theft charge.  In her answer to Specification 1, T.J.F.
admitted the allegations.
Specification 2(a) alleged that for tax years 1989, 1990 and 1991, T.J.F.
exhibited a pattern of irresponsibility or lack of respect for the law or both by
failing to comply with the federal income tax laws that require the timely filing of tax
returns.  Specification 2(b) alleged that on August 15, 1995, a notice of federal tax
lien was filed on all of T.J.F.’s property and rights to property for unpaid taxes for
the years 1989, 1990 and 1991.  At the time of her investigative hearing, T.J.F. had
not made any payments to the IRS.  As to Specification 2, T.J.F. admitted that she
had not filed her 1989, 1990 and 1991 tax returns in a timely fashion, but denied any
irresponsibility or lack of respect for the law.  
1  T.J.F. was charged with theft of the wallet.  See Specification 1.   
2  A fourth specification was alleged, that during T.J.F.’s investigative hearing and in subsequent
correspondence with the Board, she had been unwilling to accept any responsibility for the untimely filing
of her 1989, 1990 and 1991 tax returns.   However, the Board ultimately found that this specification was
not proven.
-3-
Specification 3 alleged that in a 1997 amendment to her Florida Bar
application, T.J.F. falsely stated that she left a department store without realizing
she was holding a wallet.1  The Specification alleged that T.J.F. had decided to
steal the wallet prior to exiting the store.  As to Specification 3, T.J.F. denied that
her explanation regarding the theft of the wallet was false or lacked candor.2 
Finally, T.J.F. asserted the affirmative defense of rehabilitation.
At the formal hearing, in support of her rehabilitation, T.J.F. submitted into
evidence documents concerning her communication with the IRS and the Board, an
affidavit of her mother attesting to T.J.F.’s financial difficulty from 1994 to 1997,
and the character deposition of a law professor who stated his belief that T.J.F.
would be a competent and skillful attorney. 
The Board found that Specifications 1, 2 and 3 had been proven.   In finding
that T.J.F. lacked candor in her amendment, the Board noted that even if T.J.F. had
not formed an intent to steal the wallet until she left the store, she should have
clarified this fact in her amendment, rather than simply stating that she walked out
-4-
of the store without realizing that she was holding the wallet.  Further, the Board
concluded that circumstantial evidence demonstrated that T.J.F. did form an intent
to steal the wallet prior to leaving the store, and that T.J.F.’s testimony at the formal
hearing was “unreasonable and unworthy of belief.”
The Board found that Specifications 1 and 2 were collectively disqualifying
and that Specification 3 was individually disqualifying.  The Board noted that
Specification 3 was especially serious because “truthfulness and candor are
essential attributes for all individuals seeking to practice law in Florida.” 
The Board found that T.J.F.’s formal hearing presentation did not establish
the defense of rehabilitation.  Further, the Board concluded that the evidence
presented by T.J.F. failed to “mitigate the seriousness of any of the proven
allegations” and “was insufficient to establish her rehabilitation by clear and
convincing evidence.”  The Board ultimately recommended that T.J.F. not be
admitted to The Florida Bar.  
T.J.F. seeks review of the Board's recommendation.   Among other
challenges, she argues that Specification 3 (lack of candor in her amendment) was
not proven and that, even if proven, the specifications should not disqualify her
from membership in The Florida Bar in light of her rehabilitation.
ANALYSIS
-5-
On a preliminary note, T.J.F. admitted Specification 1 (alleging the illegal
return of the purse and the theft of the wallet).  Since this conclusion is not
contested, we find that Specification 1 has been proven.
In challenging Specification 3, T.J.F. argues that her amendment was not
misleading. In addition to getting the refund for a purse that she had not purchased,
her amendment provided:
I also took a wallet which was in my hand when I walked out of the
store.  I was not aware that I still had the wallet, I can only conclude
that I was so nervous at what I had done that I tried to leave the store
without realizing that I was still holding onto the wallet.
In her amendment, T.J.F. states that she “took” a wallet; she does not state
that she “stole” a wallet.  As written, T.J.F.’s amendment gives the impression that
she accidentally walked out of the store with the wallet but never had any intent to
steal it.  Predicated upon T.J.F.’s later admission that she decided to steal the
wallet after exiting the store, regardless of when she formed her intent, her failure to
mention her decision to steal the wallet in her amendment constitutes a
misrepresentation to the Board. Therefore, we find that Specification 3 is proven.  
We next must determine whether the proven Specifications are disqualifying
for admission to the Bar.  Generally, in judging an applicant's character and fitness,
the standard in determining whether certain items of misconduct are disqualifying is
3  Therefore, we decline to address the Board’s conclusions regarding Specifications 2(a) and 2(b).
-6-
whether the misconduct creates "substantial doubts about [the applicant’s]
honesty, fairness, and respect for the rights of others and for the laws of the state
and nation." Florida Bd. of Bar Exam’rs re G.J.G., 709 So. 2d 1377, 1381 (Fla.
1998).
We find that Specifications 1 and 3 are sufficient to deny T.J.F. admission to
the Bar at this time.3  At the age of 33, T.J.F. engaged in two acts of theft by
unlawfully obtaining a refund for a purse, and stealing a wallet.  These acts call into
doubt T.J.F.’s honesty and respect for the laws of the State of Florida and the
nation.  Given T.J.F.’s age at the time of these offenses, the Board correctly states
that “[s]uch behavior cannot be excused as a youthful indiscretion.”  Further,
T.J.F.’s lack of candor in her communications with the Board is an especially
serious violation because under current case law, the making of false statements to
the Board merits disqualification from the Bar.  See Florida Bd. of Bar Exam’rs re
C.A.M., 639 So. 2d 612, 613 (Fla. 1994) (holding that “[a] lack of candor on the
part of an applicant is intolerable and disqualifying for membership in the Bar”).  
T.J.F. argues that she should not be disqualified from the Bar because she
has demonstrated rehabilitation.  To establish her defense, T.J.F. presented the
following evidence at her hearing:  (a) a resume; (b) documents concerning her
-7-
dealings with the IRS and the Board; (c) an affidavit from her mother explaining
T.J.F.’s financial difficulties from 1994 until 1997; and (d) the deposition of a law
professor who expressed his belief that T.J.F. would be a competent and skillful
attorney.  However, we conclude that this evidence simply does not demonstrate
T.J.F. has taken sufficient action to make herself a better candidate for becoming a
lawyer and her presentation of evidence does not provide clear and convincing
evidence of her rehabilitation.  See generally Fla. Bar Admiss. R. 3-13(g) (stating
that rehabilitation  requires “positive action showing rehabilitation by such things as
a person’s occupation, religion, community or civic service [and that] 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”).  Additionally, competence and skill are not the issues with which the
Board was concerned. 
CONCLUSION
Therefore, we approve the Board’s recommendation that T.J.F. not be
admitted to The Florida Bar at this time; however, she is provided an opportunity
to engage in positive action showing rehabilitation and shall be permitted to apply
for readmission one year after the date this decision becomes final.
-8-
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and
QUINCE, JJ., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND
IF FILED, DETERMINED.
Original Proceeding - Florida Board of Bar Examiners
Randall W. Hanna, Chair, Kathryn E. Ressel, Executive Director and Thomas A.
Pobjecky, General Counsel, Florida Board of Bar Examiners, Tallahassee, Florida,
for Petitioner
Applicant, pro se, 
for Respondent