IN RE FLORIDA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS. IN RE VIRGIL DARNELL HAWKINS
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.
Virgil Darnell Hawkins petitioned for admission to the Florida Bar under the diploma privilege doctrine after decades of litigation stemming from his denial of law school admission. The Florida Supreme Court waived the bar examination and law school graduation requirements but conditioned admission on demonstrating good character and fitness, attending a continuing legal education seminar, and completing a six-month supervised internship.
The Court waived the bar examination and law school graduation requirements for Hawkins under its constitutional authority, but conditioned his admission on: (1) demonstrating good character and moral fitness through a Board investigation, (2) attending the pre-induction 'Bridging the Gap' seminar, and (3) completing at least a six-month supervised internship devoting not less than twenty hours per week to studying Florida law and procedure.
[1] A state's highest court has the constitutional authority to waive bar examination and law school graduation requirements for admission to the bar.
[2] A state's highest court may waive bar admission requirements for an individual while still requiring demonstration of good character and moral fitness.
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“we hold that the bar examination and the law school graduation requirements of our bar admission rules are waived for Mr. Hawkins. As with all bar applicants, however, we cannot and do not waive the requirement that Mr. Hawkins demonstrate good character and moral fitness.”
Establishes the Court's holding that certain requirements are waived but the character and fitness requirement remains mandatory for all applicants.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHawkins had a long history of attempting to gain admission to practice law in Florida, with prior litigation documented in both the Florida and United…
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 to review a petition for admission to The Florida Bar pursuant to the so-called “diploma privilege” which once was extant in this state. Mr. Hawkins’ request is opposed by The Florida Bar, which nonetheless commendably concedes his claim on this Court’s conscience and suggests that we waive certain bar admission requirements and allow him to take the Florida bar examination. The Florida Board of Bar Examiners takes no position in this matter. Oral argument has been requested, but our review of the entire record discloses no reason to grant the request.
It is unnecessary to recite in detail the historical chronology of Mr. Hawkins’ attempts to obtain admission to the practice of law in Florida. The entire episode is fully set out in the official reports of this Court and the United States Supreme Court.1
We have carefully reviewed Mr. Hawkins’ petition, the record of prior proceedings in this Court in which he was a party, the totality of circumstances affecting his prior application for law school admission and his current application for bar admission, and all relevant decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Based on these materials, and under the power conferred on us in Article V, Section 15 of the Florida Constitution, we hold that the bar examination and the law school graduation requirements of our bar admission rules are waived for Mr. Hawkins. As with all bar applicants, however, we cannot and do not waive the requirement that Mr. Hawkins demonstrate good character and moral fitness. Moreover, we cannot ignore the interests of the public insofar as they may be affected by Mr. Hawkins’ absence from the practice of law or law-related activities.
To meet the character requirement we direct the Florida Board of Bar Examiners to inquire into Mr. Hawkins’ character and fitness and to file its report with the clerk of this Court on or before December 15, 1976, and in the absence of a showing that Mr. Hawkins does not meet the standards of character and fitness required for attorneys in this state he shall be admitted to The Florida Bar. Notwithstanding such admission, however, and so that the public is protected should Mr. Hawkins elect to engage in the active practice of law, we direct that he shall not appear in any court or otherwise engage in the practice of law as a member of The Florida Bar until he presents evidence satisfactory to this Court that he has (1) attended the pre-induction “Bridging the Gap” seminar for new lawyers presented periodically by the Young Lawyer’s Section of The Florida Bar and (2) successfully completed an internship period of at least six months under the supervision of an active member of The Florida Bar in good standing, devoting not less than twenty hours per week to the study of Florida law and procedure in this manner. It is so ordered.
OVERTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS, BOYD, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur. . State ex rel. Hawkins v. Board of Control, 47 So. 2d 608 (Fla.1950); State ex rel. Hawkins v. Board of Control, 53 So. 2d 116 (Fla.), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 877, 72 S.Ct. 166, 96 L.Ed. 659 (1951); State ex rel. Hawkins v. Board of Control, 60 So. 2d 162 (Fla.1952), vacated and remanded, 347 U.S. 971, 74 S.Ct. 783, 98 L.Ed. 1112 (1954); relief upon mandate withheld, 83 So. 2d 20 (Fla.1955), mandate recalled and modified, cert. denied, 350 U.S. 413, 76 S.Ct. 464, 100 L.Ed. 486 (1956), relief upon mandate withheld, 93 So. 2d 354 (Fla.), cert. denied without prejudice, 355 U.S. 839, 78 S.Ct. 20, 2 L.Ed.2d 49 (1957).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Hawkins, 444 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 1984)…y convictions or grievances filed. He has been a member of The Florida Bar since 1977 having been admitted by order of the Supreme Court of Florida waiving bar examination and law school graduation requirements. In re Florida Board of Bar Examiners, 339 So. 2d 637 (Fla.1976). A complaint was filed against respondent with The Florida Bar arising out of respondent’s handling of a felony trial. The Bar Grievance Committee found probable cause that respondent had violated Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(l) of The Flo…
-
THE Fla. BAR. In re Virgil Darnell Hawkins, 532 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1988)…Bar exam because the law school was unaccredited. Finally, in 1976, this Court ordered that Hawkins be admitted to The Florida Bar without having to take the bar exam in an attempt to remedy the injustices of the past. In re Board of Bar Examiners, 339 So. 2d 637 (Fla.1976).2 Consequently, it was not until 1977, at the age of sixty-nine, that Virgil Hawkins opened his law office in Leesburg. He seldom turned away an indigent client in need. However, his advanced age and lapse of years since attending law sc…
Authorities Cited (12 total)
- Thomas v. California, 347 U.S. 971 (U.S. 1954)
- Florida ex rel. Hawkins v. Bd. of Control of Fla., 350 U.S. 413 (U.S. 1956)
- State Ex Rel. Hawkins v. Bd. of Control of Fla., 47 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 1950)
- State Ex Rel. Hawkins v. Bd. of Control, 53 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 1951)
- State Ex Rel. Hawkins v. Bd. of Control, 60 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 1952)
- Florida ex rel. Hawkins v. Bd. of Control, 355 U.S. 839 (U.S. 1957)
- May Seed & Nursery Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 355 U.S. 839 (U.S. 1957)
- Batman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 342 U.S. 877 (U.S. 1951)
- Florida ex rel. Hawkins v. Bd. of Control of Fla., 342 U.S. 877 (U.S. 1951)
- The State of Fla. ex rel. Virgil D. Hawkins v. Bd. OF Control, 93 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 1957)