DocketNumber: S00A0242
Citation Numbers: 271 Ga. 873, 523 S.E.2d 562
Filed Date: 11/1/1999
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
J. L. A. seeks reversal of the Georgia Board of Bar Examiners’ denial of his application for eligibility to sit for the Georgia Attorney’s Examination. Finding that the evidence underlying this matter clearly supports the Bar Examiners’ decision, we affirm.
J. L. A., a member of the Florida Bar, applied to the Georgia Bar Examiners for permission to sit for the Attorney’s Examination. On May 18, 1999, an administrative secretary with the Florida Bar wrote to the Georgia Bar Examiners that J. L. A. was a member in good standing of the Florida Bar despite that he had been the subject of three inquiries, one of which resulted in an injunction being issued against him that did not constitute attorney discipline.
A review of the record shows that the injunction issued against J. L. A. was in response to the Florida Bar’s petition to the Supreme Court of Florida for an emergency suspension of J. L. A., because he had “preyed on the families of the victims of ValuJet flight number 592 in an attempt to solicit their legal business in contravention of Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 4-7.4,” and that such solicitation was “wilful, a blatant intrusion of the privacy of those contacted, motivated by J. L. A.’s personal pecuniary gain, and likely to continue to cause great public harm.”
In his appeal to this Court, J. L. A. asserts that both the Florida Bar Director of Regulation and the Georgia Board of Bar Examiners are mistaken in concluding that the injunction issued against him by the Florida Supreme Court was a form of discipline under the Rules of the Florida Bar.'However, we believe that Florida Bar officials are in the best position to construe the rules governing the practice of law in Florida, and we will not interfere with the Florida officials’ construction of their own rules in this matter.
Regarding the Georgia Rules, a person who has “been the subject of private or public lawyer discipline of any nature in any United States jurisdiction” may not be eligible to sit for the Georgia Attorney’s Examination.
Decision affirmed.
Regarding the other two inquiriés against J. L. A., the administrative secretary from Florida wrote that one of them had not been concluded at the time of her letter, and the other had no disposition entered, but nonetheless appears to have resulted in a disciplinary sanction being imposed by Florida Bar regulators. These two inquiries have no bearing on our decision in this matter.
The Florida Bar v. J L. A., No. 88,322 (Supreme Court of Florida, Corrected Order dated July 2,1996).
Rules Governing Admission to the Practice of Law, Part C, Section 2.
In re C. R. W„ 267 Ga. 534 (481 SE2d 511) (1997).
Id.; In re K. S. L., 269 Ga. 51 (495 SE2d 276) (1998).