APPLICATION OF ERNEST BURKMAN FOR ADMISSION TO THE FLORIDA BAR EXAMINATION
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Ernest Burkman sought review of the Florida Board of Bar Examiners' denial of his application to sit for the bar examination. The Board found his abstract of practice inadequate under the requirement for applicants lacking an accredited law school degree who seek to qualify through ten years of practice at another state's bar. The Supreme Court affirmed the Board's denial.
The Court held that Burkman's abstract was inadequate under the rule. Although applicants without an accredited law school degree may qualify through ten years of practice at another state's bar, they must furnish an abstract demonstrating the scope and character of their experience, training, and background sufficient for the Board to determine fitness as a substitute for a law school degree.
“upon furnishing to the Board an abstract showing the scope and character of the applicant's previous experience and practice at the bar, his academic and legal training and his cultural background”
States the rule requirement that applicants must provide a detailed abstract demonstrating their experience and qualifications
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBurkman had ten years of practice in good standing at the Michigan bar but lacked the required three years of in-residence accredited college work and…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Substantial Compliance With Rules cases and more on FLexlaw
Applicant, Ernest Burkman, hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner, seeks review of the order of the Florida Board of Bar Examiners denying him admission to the bar examination on the ground that his abstract of practice failed to meet the requirements of Article IV, Section 22(c), Rules of the Supreme Court of Florida Relating to Admission to the Bar, 31 F.S. A. The rule provides that applicants who have not completed three years’ in-residence accredited college work and graduated from a full-time accredited law school may nonetheless be admitted to the bar examination upon demonstrating fitness, producing evidence of ten years of practice and good standing at the bar of another state and “upon furnishing to the Board an abstract showing the scope and character of the applicant’s previous experience and practice at the bar, his academic and legal training and his cultural background. * ;]c * t>
The Board advised petitioner his abstract failed to set forth grounds which would warrant the Board finding him qualified under the provisions of Article IV, Section 22(c). He was allowed sixty (60) days to file additional information but failed to do so.
Petitioner contends his three-page abstract, in which were listed one probate and *8four domestic relations cases, is in substantial compliance with the rule and that the action of the Board is arbitrary and based upon an overly strict interpretation of the rules. He advised the Board he was unable to furnish more case histories of his practice because, before leaving his home state of Michigan, he had disposed of his files and records.
We have considered the petition and response, the rule and abstract filed pursuant thereto, and must agree with the Board that petitioner’s abstract is inadequate. The purpose of the required abstract is to enable the Board to determine whether, as a substitute for a degree from an accredited law school, the applicant possesses sufficient technical and legal training gained through broad and varied experience over a period of ten years’ practice.
Accordingly the action of the Florida Board of Bar Examiners dated May 29, 1964, denying Ernest Burkman admission to the bar examination is approved and affirmed.
DREW, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.