FLORIDA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS, PETITIONER,
v.
STANLEY LERNER, RESPONDENT
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 revoked Stanley Lerner's license to practice law after the Florida Board of Bar Examiners found that he falsely answered questions on his bar application regarding prior complaints and disciplinary proceedings, particularly omitting his prior disbarment in New York.
The court revoked Lerner's license to practice law in Florida, adopting the Board of Bar Examiners' recommendation that his license be revoked pursuant to Rule III, Section 22 of the Rules Relating to Admission to The Florida Bar.
[1] Falsifying an application for admission to the bar by providing false answers to questions about prior complaints or grievance committee appearances warrants revocation o…
[2] An applicant for admission to the bar must truthfully disclose any formal or informal charges, complaints, or proceedings instituted against them.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“he falsely gave the negative answer 'no' to the following question: 'Have any charges or complaints, formal or informal, ever been made or filed or proceedings instituted against you ?' well knowing said answer to be false”
Establishes the first material misrepresentation on the bar application regarding prior complaints
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLerner applied for admission to the Florida Bar in February 1970, swearing to the accuracy of his application under Item 101(d) and 101(e). He answere…
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.
Pursuant to Rule III, Section 22, of the Rules Relating to Admission to The Florida Bar, the Florida Board of Bar Examiners has made an investigation and submitted its findings and recommendations to this Court for final action.
The findings of the Florida Board of Bar Examiners include the following:
“1. That under Item 101(d) in his application filed with the Board, the accuracy of which was sworn to by respondent on February 24, 1970, he falsely gave the negative answer ‘no’ to the following question :
‘Have any charges or complaints, formal or informal, ever been made or filed or proceedings instituted against you ?’
well knowing said answer to be false in that a charge or complaint was made against him by one Wanda Horton which was sworn to on July 30, 1968, and submitted to the Judicial Inquiry on Professional Conduct of attorneys in the Second Judicial Department, Supreme Court, Kings County, New York, and which resulted in respondent’s ultimate disbarment from the practice of law effective March 1, 1971, by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Judicial Department.
“2. That under Item 101(e) in respondent’s application filed with the Board, the accuracy of which was sworn to by him on February 24, 1970, he falsely gave the negative answer ‘no’ to the following question:
‘Have you ever appeared, formally or informally, before a grievance or other similar committee of any bar association or other law group ?’
well knowing said answer to be false in that he appeared, formally or informally, before the Brooklyn, New York Bar Association, Committee on Grievances on or about March 19, 1969, to respond to a complaint made by one Wanda Horton.”
It is the conclusion of this Court that the evidence before the Florida Board of Bar Examiners, as set forth in the foregoing findings, establishes that the respondent did gain admission to The Florida Bar Examination upon an application which was falsified, and accordingly the recommendation of the Board that the license heretofore issued to Stanley Lerner be revoked by this Court pursuant to Rule III, Section 22, of the Rule Relating to Admission to The Florida Bar, should be and the same is hereby approved and adopted as the decision of this Court.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, TJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Lancaster, 448 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 1984)…Bar who lies or omits the truth on the bar application is presumed unfit for admission to the legal profession in this state. See, e.g., Fla.Sup. Ct.Bar Admiss.Rule, art. VII, § 2; Fla.Bar, Exam.Rule I, § 6, Florida Board of Bar Examiners v. Lerner, 250 So. 2d 852 (Fla.1971). This is justified because our profession can operate properly only if its individual members conform to the highest standard of integrity in all dealings within the legal system. How much more is this true of one already reaping the bene…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Webster, 662 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 1995)…47 So. 2d at 818. Disbarment under these circumstances is consistent with this Court’s recognition that falsification of a Florida bar admission application warrants revocation of the license to practice law. Florida Bd. of Bar Examiners v. Lerner, 250 So. 2d 852 (Fla.1971). Disbarment also is called for under Florida Standard for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 5.11(f), which provides that disbarment is appropriate when a lawyer engages in intentional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentat…
-
Fla. Bd. OF BAR Exam'rs re Daniel Mark Zavadil, 123 So. 3d 550 (Fla. 2013)…1-5 were proven, Bar Admissions Rule 5-14 authorizes the Court to revoke a lawyer’s admission only if we determine that the lawyer made a “material misstatement or material omission” in the application process. See Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs v. Lerner, 250 So. 2d 852, 858 (Fla.1971) (revoking respondent’s admission to the Bar where respondent made false statements in his application). In this case, we conclude that Zavadil’s omissions were material. The Board is charged with the obligation to investigate applic…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence