Opinion ID: 2416759
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Missouri dental license

Text: The Board's decision rested in part on its factual findings concerning the suspension and surrender of Mr. Shochet's Missouri dentist's license. As mentioned, Mr. Shochet was suspended from the practice of dentistry in Missouri based on his admission to having billed an insurance company for services not rendered. Mr. Shochet admitted his culpability as to that allegation during the hearing, and, although the Missouri Dental Board had dropped its perjury charge, Mr. Shochet further admitted in the hearing that he had indeed committed perjury before the Missouri Dental Board. The Board found that Mr. Shochet knowingly engaged in fraud and misrepresentation by billing for services not rendered during the period of 1988-1989. Further, the applicant resorted to perjury to thwart the investigative efforts of the Missouri Dental Board. Mr. Shochet later surrendered his dentist's license following his admission that he had practiced dentistry during the period in which his license was suspended. During the hearing before the Board, however, Mr. Shochet maintained that he had done nothing wrong with respect to the unlicensed-practice charge. He conceded that, legally, he had engaged in the unlicensed practice of dentistry, but he asserted that his actions were based upon the advice of counsel. Mr. Shochet testified that he chose to admit to the Missouri Dental Board's allegations and surrender his dentist's license only because (1) he wanted to foreclose the possibility of having his license revoked, which he perceived as a more severe sanction; (2) he lacked the financial resources to defend the charge; and (3) he saw no purpose in defending the charge because he was living in Florida and attending law school there, he did not intend to use his Missouri dentist's license again, and he planned to pursue a legal and dentistry practice in Florida. The Board found that Mr. Shochet now denies responsibility for practicing dentistry while his license was suspended. He avers that his actions were based upon advice from his attorneys. He also suggests that his admission of culpability was a matter of expediency and convenience. The record shows that on January 15, 1992, prior to the beginning of the suspension period, the applicant's attorney set forth the circumstances under which the applicant could rent his office during the period of suspension. That letter made clear that the suspension prohibited the applicant from drawing any income from patients. By letter of March 9, 1992, the applicant, apparently without assistance of legal counsel, entered into an agreement with Dr. Glenn D. Yowell. Through the agreement with Dr. Yowell, he (the applicant) would control appointments, billing and equipment, etc. Any sums collected which exceeded Dr. Yowell's 25% and office expenses would flow as income to the applicant. The applicant associated Dr. Yowell as an independent contractor to continue receipt of patient income, contrary to the terms of his license suspension. Further, a majority of the Board gives little weight to the applicant's protestations that his arrangement with Dr. Yowell was based upon legal advice and that his admission of culpability was solely to avoid further litigation. We cannot say that these findings of the Board of Law Examiners are clearly erroneous. Mr. Shochet admitted that he committed insurance fraud and perjury, and the Board properly considered this past misconduct in determining whether Mr. Shochet's possessed good moral character. It also was appropriate for the Board to take into account Mr. Shochet's practice of dentistry on a suspended licensemisconduct that Mr. Shochet acknowledged in administrative proceedings in Missouri. In the hearing before the Arkansas Board of Law Examiners, however, Mr. Shochet denied responsibility for his misconduct. He asserted that his counsel had approved his plans for the operation of his dentist's office during the suspension period, and he suggested that his admission to the unlicensed-practice charge was motivated, in the words of the Board, only by expediency and convenience. The Board obviously found Mr. Shochet's explanation disingenuous. It determined that Mr. Shochet was unable to accept responsibility for his actions, and we cannot say that determination was clearly erroneous. Nor is the Board's finding on this point contrary to the rule established in Florida Board of Bar Examiners re G.J.G., 709 So.2d 1377 (Fla.1998); Florida Board of Bar Examiners re M.C.A., 650 So.2d 34 (Fla.1995); and Martin B. v. Committee of Bar Examiners, 33 Cal.3d 717, 190 Cal.Rptr. 610, 661 P.2d 160 (Cal.1983), which are cited by Mr. Shochet. According to those cases, an applicant should not be denied admission on account of his or her assertion of innocence regarding a charge of past misconduct where the applicant has not been found guilty of the charge and has consistently maintained his or her innocence with respect to it. Those cases do not assist Mr. Shochet here. Mr. Shochet has not consistently maintained his innocence with respect to the unlicensed-practice charge. He admitted the truth of the charge in proceedings before a Missouri agency and agreed to surrender his dentist's license. In the hearing before the Board of Law Examiners, however, Mr. Shochet changed his story, blamed his former attorneys, and essentially attempted to retract his prior admission of guilt. We find nothing in the cases cited by Mr. Shochet that precluded the Board from concluding, on the basis of Mr. Shochet's testimony, that he failed to accept responsibility for past misconduct that he previously acknowledged and for which he was sanctioned. An applicant's continued denial of an act for which he or she has been found guilty or sanctioned does not serve the applicant well in bar-admission proceedings and is, in fact, unacceptable. Florida Board of Bar Examiners re G.J.G., 709 So.2d at 1381.