Petition of Dawson, 30983
| Decision Date | 28 June 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 30983,30983 |
| Citation | 131 So.2d 472 |
| Parties | In re: Petition of William B. DAWSON, III. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Gerald R. Hart, Jacksonville, for petitioner.
Henry F. Martin, Jr., Jacksonville, for The Florida Bar, respondent.
Petitioner Dawson seeks reinstatement to the privilege of practicing law pursuant to the provisions of Article XI(5)(i) of the Integration Rule governing The Florida Bar, 31 F.S.A.
We are called upon to determine whether the showing made by the petitioner is adequate to justify an order of reinstatement.
On April 29, 1959, petitioner Dawson was suspended from the practice of law for a period of eighteen months and continuously thereafter until he paid the costs of the proceeding and met the requirements of Article XI(5)(i) of the Integration Rule governing reinstatement. State ex rel. Florida Bar v. Dawson, Fla.1959, 111 So.2d 427. His petition for reinstatement was filed in duplicate with The Florida Bar, November 2, 1960. A copy thereof was duly filed with this Court on November 3, 1960. Thereafter the Board of Governors appointed a reinstatement committee to hear such evidence as the petitioner might offer to support his request, as all as any evidence to be offered in opposition thereto. After an extensive hearing the reinstatement committee recommended that the petitioner be reinstated to a position in good standing upon the payment of costs incurred in the reinstatement proceedings. The report of the committee, however, requested certain rulings by this Court regarding the matter of reinstatement following suspensions. We shall discuss these points hereafter. In due course, the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar has recommended that this Court 'give favorable consideration to the petition for reinstatement' and that 'said petitioner have restored to him the privileges and responsibilities of a member in good standing of The Florida Bar.' We now proceed to consider the recommendations of the Board of Governors and the reinstatement committee.
In appearing before the reinstatement committee, counsel for The Florida Bar insisted that petitioner Dawson should be required to comply with the rules of this Court relating to admissions to the Bar as promulgated November 1, 1955. The point of contention simply was that the petitioner had originally been admitted to practice under the so-called 'diploma privilege' and that after having been suspended he should not now be reinstated unless he satisfactorily passed an examination to be given by the Board of Bar Examiners under the admissions rule last mentioned.
Although under Article V, Section 23, Florida Constitution, F.S.A., this Court has the power in any particular case to condition reinstatement after discipline upon a successful compliance with the rule governing original admissions, the fact remains that we have not yet entered an order of this type. No rule has been promulgated which would authorize such a requirement. Conceivably, a rule of this nature could be promulgated to cover situations where a member of The Bar has been out of the practice for an extended period of years because of a disciplinary order. Under such circumstances it is understandable that the public interest might require evidence of the lawyer's continued professional competency to resume the practice. In the instant case no such requirement was made by our order. The various opinions on this subject are typified by several decisions of the courts of other states. In re Stevens, 197 Cal. 408, 241 P. 88; Friday v. State Bar of California, 23 Cal.2d 501, 144 P.2d 564; Cantor v. Grievance Committee, 189 Tenn. 536, 226 S.W.2d 283; In re Keenan 310 Mass. 166, 37 N.E.2d 516, 137 A.L.R. 781. Our view on this point simply is that, until this Court prescribes a rule otherwise, or unless the disciplinary order expressly requires the taking of a bar examination as a condition to reinstatement, no such requirement is authorized.
Although the reinstatement committee of the Bar was of the view that this petitioner should be permitted to return to the practice, it entertained some concern regarding the basic elements of the showing that should be made in order to support reinstatement.
We begin with the requirement that the burden is on the petitioner to establish that he is entitled to resume the privilege of practicing law without restrictions. The essential elements will, of course, vary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown, In re
...107 N.W.2d 518 (1961); In the Matter of the Petition of Seijas, 63 Wash.2d 865, 868-869, 389 P.2d 652 (1964). Cf. In re Petition of Dawson, 131 So.2d 472, 474 (Fla.1961).' (368 Mass. 447 at 460, 333 N.E.2d 429 at 437-38)" A fair reading of the entire Smith opinion leads to the conclusion th......
-
Shannon, Matter of
...costs and expenses as a part of the disciplinary process. See, e.g., In re Lutz, 100 Idaho 45, 592 P.2d 1362, 1366 (1979); In re Dawson, 131 So.2d 472, 474 (Fla.1961); In re Mississippi State Bar, 361 So.2d 503, 506 (Miss.1978); In re Zinn, 39 N.M. 161, 42 P.2d 776, 778 (1935); In re Randal......
-
Hiss, In re
...107 N.W.2d 518 (1961); In the Matter of the Petition of Seijas, 63 Wash.2d 865, 868--869, 389 P.2d 652 (1964). Cf. In re Petition of Dawson, 131 So.2d 472, 474 (Fla.1961). The judgment of disbarment 'continues to be evidence against . . . (the petitioner) with respect to lack of moral chara......
-
Brown, In re
...107 N.W.2d 518 (1961); In the Matter of the Petition of Seijas, 63 Wash.2d 865, 868-869, 389 P.2d 652 (1964). Cf. In re Petition of Dawson, 131 So.2d 472, 474 (Fla.1961)." (368 Mass. at 460, 333 N.E.2d at As we stated in State v. Gary, W.Va., 247 S.E.2d 420, 421 (1978), there are several re......