IN RE FLORIDA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS. IN RE RAYMOND EARL RHODES
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.
Raymond Earl Rhodes sought admission to the Florida Bar under diploma privilege after enrolling in law school before the July 25, 1951 deadline in the repealed statute. The Florida Supreme Court denied his petition because, although he met the enrollment deadline requirement, he failed to satisfy the three-year degree completion requirement due to a gap between his initial enrollment and law school completion.
The court held that although Rhodes satisfied the enrollment deadline requirement, he did not qualify for the diploma privilege exception because he failed to meet the three-year degree completion requirement. The gap between his initial enrollment in 1950 and graduation in 1959 exceeded the three-year window prescribed by the statute.
[1] A statute repealing a prior diploma privilege for bar admission may contain exceptions for individuals enrolled in law school prior to a specified date.
[2] To qualify for a diploma privilege exception, an applicant must not only enroll in an approved law school before the statutory deadline but also obtain a law degree withi…
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“No person shall be entitled to admission to practice without examination as to legal attainments; provided, that any person enrolled on or before the 25th day of July, 1951, as a student in any law school chartered by and conducted within this state or approved by the supreme court shall be entitled to admission upon presenting to the state board of law examiners satisfactory evidence of good moral character and obtaining the degree of bachelor of laws from such school within three years of the date either of his enrollment or of [the effective day of the Act]”
The controlling statute establishing the diploma privilege requirements that the petitioner must satisfy, requiring both timely enrollment and degree completion within three years.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRhodes enrolled at the University of Florida College of Law on September 18, 1950, but withdrew on October 2, 1950. He re-enrolled for the spring 1951…
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 Diploma Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us for review of a petition for admission to The Florida Bar pursuant to diploma privilege. Oral argument has been requested but our review of the entire record discloses this to be unnecessary, and therefore the same is hereby dispensed with.
The Florida Legislature enacted Chapter 10175, Laws of Florida 1925, and Section 3 thereof provided the following:
“Any graduate of a law school chartered by and conducted within this state, or the law department of any chartered university of this state maintaining the course of study approved of by the Supreme Court, shall be entitled to a certificate from said board entitling him or her to practice, without further examination as to legal attainments; provided, such applicant shall produce to said board his or her diploma from such law school or university, with satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and that he or she is over the age of twenty-one years. . . . ”
Then the Florida Legislature repealed the diploma privilege which contains specified exceptions through Chapter 26655, Section 3, Laws of Florida 1951, effective May 18, 1951, which was embodied in § 454.031(3), Fla.Stat., 1951, reading as follows :
“(3) No person shall be entitled to admission to practice without examination as to legal attainments; provided, that any person enrolled on or before the 25th day of July, 1951, as a student in any law school chartered by and conducted within this state or approved by the supreme court shall be entitled to admission upon presenting to the state board of law examiners satisfactory evidence of good moral character and obtaining the degree of bachelor of laws from such school within three years of the date either of his enrollment or of [the effective day of the Act], time spent in military service of the United States, an allied nation, or the United Nations not to be reckoned as part of said three years.” (Emphasis supplied)
Petitioner maintains he met the full requirements of this subsequent Act, however, we cannot agree. Petitioner enrolled at the College of Law, University of Florida, on September 18, 1950, but withdrew on October 2, 1950. He re-enrolled for the second semester of the 1950-1951 academic term but discontinued attendance which resulted in the petitioner receiving grades of incomplete in each course during that semester. Petitioner’s assertion for discontinuance of studies is because of the lack of finances and the necessity to work in order to maintain sustenance. He apparently worked hard, saved money and then entered the College of Law at Stetson University during January, 1957, and graduated with an LL.B. degree during May, 1959.
Thus, while petitioner fulfilled the initial exception of the Act under review, by enrolling prior to July 25, 1951, he unfortunately fails to qualify under the remaining requirements for exception.
Petitioner has cited several cases to support his position: Petition of Rocafort, Fla.1966, 186 So. 2d 496; Petition of Warford, Fla.1967, 194 So. 2d 256; In re Bennett’s Petition, Fla.1964, 168 So. 2d 318; Petition of Lebron, Fla.1966, 183 So. 2d 544, Reh. 185 So. 2d 464; In re Florida Board of Bar Examiners — re: Benjamin Harris Ervin, Fla.1974, 290 So. 2d 9, however, these cases are readily distinguishable and we do not deem it necessary to designate the special characteristics of distinction except as hereinafter set forth.
Obviously, petitioner is not seeking his exception due to military service, and since his alleged required necessities dictated a selection of dropping out of college in order to work (which is commendable), nevertheless it constituted a difference between selecting work rather than completing his legal education.
With an abundance of caution for the petitioner, we have given careful attentiveness to his thrust, however, we fail to find any harsh and inequitable result in our ultimate conclusion.
Accordingly, the petition seeking diploma privilege is hereby denied.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, Mc-CAIN, OVERTON and ENGLAND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Petition of Philip Stephen Bennett for the issuance of a certificate to practice law in the State of Fla. & for admission to The Fla. Bar, 168 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 1964)
- Petition of Placido Lebron, Jr., 183 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1966)
- Petition of Placido Lebron, Jr., 185 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1966)
- Petition of Blas Manuel Rocafort, III, 186 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 1966)
- In re Norman David Warford Petition for Admission to The Florida Bar, 194 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 1967)
- In re Fla. Bd. OF BAR Exam'rs. In re Benjamin Harris Ervin, 290 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1974)