Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

491 So. 2d 1104

491 So.2d 1104

11 Fla.L.Weekly 320

In re VMF

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided July 10, 1986

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1986-07-10

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently December 1994

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-07-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BARKETT, Justice,

¶1concurring specially.

¶2I concur specially for several reasons. First, petitioner gave to the Board an unequivocal release to obtain all confidential documents. Second, in my opinion, the evi-*1108deuce does not adequately support the Board’s conclusion that petitioner willfully misrepresented facts to the Board pertaining to the marijuana incidents which occurred over ten years ago while he was a college student in 1975. Third, regardless of how bad the advice, petitioner did rely on the advice of his lawyer-father throughout his dealings with the Board (including waiving his presence at hearings). Fourth, petitioner has been a member of the Michigan Bar without incident since 1983 and came to Florida to assist in the care of his lawyer-father who has multiple sclerosis and now is confined to a wheel chair. Fifth, while the Board has withheld his admission for almost two years, petitioner has worked as a law clerk, earning a solid recommendation from his employers. In short, I believe that petitioner has been adequately punished. I cannot see what more petitioner can do to prove any further rehabilitation.

¶3ADKINS, J., concurs.

/491/so2d/1104 · .json · Public domain