PETITION OF RAYMOND W. KLEIN, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court denied Col. Raymond Klein's petition for admission to the Florida Bar examination, finding his law school graduation preceded accreditation by 27 months and he failed to adequately document purported legal practice in the Air Force. The Court invited Klein to reapply with proper documentation of his military legal service.
The Court held that Klein does not qualify under the accreditation rule as his graduation preceded accreditation by 27 months rather than occurring at graduation or within the calendar year. While the Court acknowledged he might qualify under the ten-year practice rule if he can demonstrate sufficient legal practice, he failed to provide supporting documentation of his Air Force legal activities, so the Board cannot evaluate his claim.
[1] A law school's subsequent accreditation does not cure a prior lack of accreditation at the time of graduation for purposes of bar admission requirements.
[2] The Florida Board of Bar Examiners has broad discretion in evaluating an applicant's legal practice experience for bar admission.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“His graduation preceded accreditation by some 27 months, thus placing him far outside of the requirements of Article IV, Section 22(b) that accreditation occur either as of graduation or within the calendar year.”
Establishes Klein fails the accreditation requirement by a substantial margin.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCol. Klein graduated from John Marshall Law School before it received accreditation, then was admitted to the Illinois Bar in January 1950. After his …
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.
The Florida Board of Bar Examiners has declined to accept petitioner/Colonel Raymond W. Klein’s application for admission to the Florida Bar examinations. Colonel Klein petitions here for relief under the theory that he is entitled to admission under Article IV, Section 22(b) and (c), Rules Relating to Admissions to The Bar, 32 F.S.A., because: (1) he graduated from a law school (John Marshall Law School) that received accreditation subsequent to his graduation; (2) he was admitted to the Illinois Bar in January 1950, and has been eligible to practice in that State ever since.
We agree with the Board’s rejection of petitioner’s application as it now stands. His graduation preceded accreditation by some 27 months, thus placing him far outside of the requirements of Article IV, Section 22(b) that accreditation occur either as of graduation or within the calendar year.
While petitioner was admitted to the Illinois Bar more than ten years ago, he entered the United States Air Force as a career officer shortly after his admission to that Bar. He was not assigned to the legal services division, and, therefore, would not normally be considered as having been in the practice of law. This is the position taken by the Board. However, we note that petitioner states that he was required, on numerous occasions, to act as defense attorney and also as judge in military courts during his Air Force career. Recently, in Diaz v. Florida Board of Bar Examiners, 252 So.2d 366 (Fla.1971), we indicated that demonstration of practice was a relatively flexible requirement. It is not designed to thwart an applicant, but rather to establish assurance of an applicant’s ability and capacity to function as a lawyer. For this reason, Section 22(c) (3), which governs this route to the Bar examination, states that in evaluating the work of an applicant, “[T]he Board is clothed with a broad discretion.”
The Board has not had an opportunity to evaluate the legal activities undertaken by petitioner in the Air Force because petitioner has failed to support his statements with any form of proof. Therefore, we would invite Colonel Klein to apply anew at a later date, when he can supply the Board with reasonably accurate details of the extent of his legal services, supported by appropriate documentation. The Board may then determine if these service experiences either constituted practice, or occurred with a frequency sufficient to justify an exception to the usual meaning of practice.
*146The petition is denied, but without prejudice for petitioner to proceed in the manner above indicated.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Bd. OF BAR Exam'rs. In re Barry Alan Eisenson, 272 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1973)…he month in which an applicant graduates. To read this term otherwise would in view of the wide disparity of graduation dates in Florida and elsewhere, result in unreasonable discrimination between similarly situated graduates. . Petition of Klein, 259 So. 2d 144 (Fla.1972).…
-
In re Fla. Bd. OF BAR Exam'rs. In re Julius P. Crowne, 276 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 1973)…ible to furnish.” There is no requirement in the Rules Relating to Admissions to the Bar that an applicant’s practice be recent, but passage of time does not excuse compliance with the requirements of Section 22(c). As we said in Petition of Klein, 259 So. 2d 144 (Fla.1972), “. . . Recently, in Diaz v. Florida Board of Bar Examiners, 252 So. 2d 366 (Fla.1971), we indicated that demonstration of practice was a relatively flexible requirement. It is not designed to thwart an applicant, but rather to establish…
Authorities Cited
- Diaz v. Fla. Bd. OF BAR Exam'rs, 252 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 1971)