## Facts

- M.B.S. applied for admission to The Florida Bar in March 2003.
- After investigation and an investigative hearing, the Florida Board of Bar Examiners served four specifications alleging that M.B.S.:
  - engaged in illegal, irresponsible, or improper conduct showing a lack of respect for the law and the rights of others, based on nine criminal matters spanning roughly 1990 to 2002;
  - provided false information on his law-school application, including fictitious jobs, employers, and volunteer activities;
  - provided false information to a court in seeking placement in a law-school clinical program by swearing that nothing in his background might reflect adversely on his character; and
  - provided false information about his criminal history on his bar application.
- The misconduct included, among other events, drug-related offenses and fraud/theft conduct involving misuse of stolen credit cards and related forgery-type offenses.
- After a formal hearing, the Board found all four specifications proven and disqualifying.
- Despite the disqualifying conduct, the Board concluded that M.B.S. proved rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence.
- The Board credited evidence that M.B.S. suffered from obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and alcoholism, and that he had addressed alcoholism through Alcoholics Anonymous.
- The Board also credited substantial community service (including work connected to Legal Aid) and involvement in organizations assisting offenders with reentry, supported by documents, character-witness testimony, and M.B.S.’s testimony.
- The Board unanimously recommended that M.B.S. receive conditional admission for three years.
- The Florida Supreme Court denied admission. M.B.S. then moved for rehearing of the denial order.

## Issues

1. On rehearing, did M.B.S. show that the Court should change its prior order and grant (or conditionally grant) admission because he proved present good moral character and rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence?

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court denied the motion for rehearing.
- The Court reaffirmed its prior decision denying M.B.S. admission to The Florida Bar.
- The Court declined to accept the Board’s recommendation of three-year conditional admission.

## Legal Principles

- The Florida Supreme Court has final authority over bar admissions under article V, section 15 of the Florida Constitution and makes an independent fitness determination.
- An applicant bears the burden to prove present good moral character and rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence.
- A long pattern of criminal conduct can be disqualifying and requires strong proof of present reliability and trustworthiness.
- Candor is central to fitness; false statements on a law-school application, sworn submissions to a court, or a bar application weigh heavily against admission because they reflect intentional dishonesty in legal and professional settings.
- Rehearing is not granted merely to reargue the record; the movant must show the Court overlooked or misapprehended something that would change the result.

## Conclusion

In *Florida Board of Bar Examiners re M.B.S.*, the Florida Supreme Court denied rehearing and left in place its denial of bar admission, concluding that despite significant evidence of treatment and community service and a unanimous Board recommendation for conditional admission, M.B.S. did not meet his clear-and-convincing burden to show present fitness in light of serious past criminal conduct and repeated dishonesty in law-school, court, and bar-related disclosures.


Florida Board of Bar Examiners re M.B.S., 955 So. 2d 504 (2007)