THE FLORIDA BAR. IN RE BERNARD BERMAN
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.
Bernard Berman, suspended from the Florida Bar after conviction for conspiracy to possess and purchasing stolen securities, petitioned for reinstatement. The Florida Supreme Court approved the referee's recommendation and reinstated Berman to practice law, finding he had demonstrated rehabilitation and fitness despite The Florida Bar's argument that only eighteen months of freedom from federal supervision was insufficient.
The Court held that Berman has proven his rehabilitation and fitness to practice law and approved the referee's recommendation for unconditional reinstatement.
[1] A lawyer suspended from practice due to a felony conviction may seek reinstatement by demonstrating rehabilitation and fitness to practice law.
[2] Evidence of rehabilitation and good character from judges, former judges, and attorneys can support a petition for reinstatement to the bar.
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“petitioner has proven his rehabilitation and fitness to practice law”
The Court's holding that justified approval of the reinstatement petition based on evidence presented at the hearing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn December 1, 1970, Berman was adjudicated guilty of conspiracy to possess stolen securities and purchasing and possession of stolen securities in fe…
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 Fitness To Practice Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, Bernard Berman, seeks reinstatement to membership in The Florida Bar pursuant to Florida Bar Integration Rule, article XI, rule 11.11. On December 1, 1970, petitioner was adjudicated guilty of the offenses of conspiracy to possess stolen securities and purchasing and possession stolen securities in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Florida. On January 4, 1971, The Florida Bar invoked Florida Bar Integration Rule, article XI, rule 11.07(3) by filing a copy of the judgment of guilt in this Court, thereby suspending petitioner from the practice of law.
At the hearing before the referee on his petition for reinstatement, petitioner presented an array of judges, former judges and attorneys who attested to petitioner’s successful rehabilitation, good character and fitness to practice law. The referee recommended that the petition for reinstatement be granted unconditionally. The Florida Bar did not offer rebuttal evidence at the hearing, but now argues that at the time of the filing of the petition for reinstatement1 petitioner had been free from federal correctional supervision for only eighteen months, an insufficient period in which to establish that he is once again worthy of a position of trust.
We believe that petitioner has proven his rehabilitation and fitness to practice law and, therefore, we approve the findings and conclusions of the referee.
Accordingly, petitioner, Bernard Berman, is hereby reinstated to the practice of law in Florida.
Costs in the amount of $44.00 are hereby taxed against petitioner. It is so ordered.
ENGLAND, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON and HATCHETT, JJ., concur. SUNDBERG, J., dissents with an opinion, with which ALDERMAN, J., concurs.
. The hearing before the referee followed approximately two months thereafter.
SUNDBERG, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. Although we should defer to the recommendation of the referee in matters such as these when that recommendation is based upon competent substantial evidence, nevertheless, I believe that as a matter of law performance of an individual for only eighteen months free of federal correctional supervision is an insufficient record upon which to assess rehabilitation in view of the gravity of the crimes for which respondent was convicted. To do so depreciates the seriousness of those offenses in the eyes of the public and does not enhance the confidence of the public in the bar of this state.
ALDERMAN, J., concurs.