WALTER JAVIER ARRAZOLA MENDIVIL
v.
THE FLORIDA BAR
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.
A petitioner seeking mandamus relief against The Florida Bar must demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief requested, which the petitioner failed to do.
[1] Mandamus is not an appropriate remedy to compel action by The Florida Bar because the Bar is an agency of the court acting under the court's authority, and licensing and…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“The Florida Bar is a mere agency of this court, and its officers act only under this court's authority.”
Justice Tanenbaum's concurring opinion explaining why mandamus against the Bar is conceptually problematic
Walter Javier Arrazola Mendivil petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus against The Florida Bar.…
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 Petition For Writ Of Mandamus cases and more on FLexlaw
Supreme Court of Florida
THURSDAY, MAY 21, 2026
SC2026-0210
Walter Javier Arrazola Mendivil, Petitioner(s)
V.
The Florida Bar, Respondent(s)
Because Petitioner has failed to show a clear legal right to the relief requested, he is not entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is hereby denied. See Huffman v. State, 813 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla. 2000). No motion for rehearing will be considered.
MUÑIZ, C.J., and LABARGA, COURIEL, GROSSHANS, FRANCIS, and SASSO, JJ., concur.
TANENBAUM, J., concurs with an opinion.
TANENBAUM, J., concurring.
It is true that the petitioner has failed facially to satisfy the elements necessary to demonstrate an entitlement to mandamus. Then again, petitioning for an extraordinary writ against The Florida Bar is, frankly, strange. To do so, essentially, is to ask this court to issue an extraordinary writ to itself. The Florida Bar is a mere agency of this court, and its officers act only under this court's authority. See Fla. Bar v. McCain, 330 So. 2d 712, 714 (Fla. 1976) (noting that the Bar is not “an independent agent,” so when dealing with the Bar's disciplinary powers, “we are actually talking about our own authority"). Moreover, licensing and certifications are matters of privilege, not of right; mandamus could not be an appropriate writ in this context anyway.
We can ensure the Bar's compliance with our own internal rules, within our discretion, by simple order, when appropriate. Cf. In re Proposed Disciplinary Action by Fla. Bar Against Cir. Judge, 103 So. 2d 632, 635 (Fla. 1958) (issuing “cease and desist” order to the Bar's Board of Governors). The petitioner has not shown a lack of compliance warranting our involvement.
A True Copy Test:
SC2020-0210 5/21/2026
John A. Tomasino Clerk, Supreme Court
SC2026-0210 5/21/2026
CASE NO.: SC2026-0210 Page Three
SO
Served:
JOSHUA E. DOYLE
WALTER JAVIER ARRAZOLA MENDIVIL
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Huffman v. State, 813 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 2000)
- In re Proposed Disciplinary Action BY The Florida BAR Against a Circuit Judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, 103 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 1958)
- THE Florida BAR v. McCAIN, 330 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 1976)