Florida Board of Bar Examiners Re: Applicant

Supreme Court of Florida
443 So. 2d 71 (1983)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state has a compelling interest in ensuring the moral character and mental fitness of applicants to its bar, which justifies requiring them to answer questions about past mental health treatment and execute a release for relevant medical records, thereby overcoming an applicant's constitutional right to privacy.

Facts:

An applicant sought admission to The Florida Bar.
The application questionnaire, in item 28(b), asked if the applicant had ever received regular treatment for any form of insanity, emotional disturbance, or nervous or mental disorder.
The application required the signing of an authorization and release form for documents and records relevant to the applicant's good moral character and fitness to be an attorney.
The applicant disclosed on his application that he had been transferred from the U.S. Marine Corps to a retired list for medical reasons.
The applicant refused to answer item 28(b), citing his constitutional rights.
The applicant submitted a modified authorization release form that excluded his medical records from the release.

Procedural Posture:

An applicant submitted an application for admission to The Florida Bar with an incomplete answer to question 28(b) and a modified authorization and release form.
The Florida Board of Bar Examiners notified the applicant that processing of his application would be withheld pending receipt of a complete response and an unaltered authorization form.
After further correspondence, the Board issued a final decision not to process the application until the applicant fully complied with its requirements.
The applicant sought review of the Board's ruling in the Supreme Court of Florida, the court of highest jurisdiction for bar admissions.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Florida Board of Bar Examiners' requirement that an applicant answer questions about past mental health treatment and execute a release for relevant medical records violate the applicant's right to privacy under the Florida and United States Constitutions?

Opinions:

Majority - Alderman, C.J.

No. The requirement that an applicant answer questions about past mental health treatment and execute a release for relevant medical records does not violate the applicant's constitutional right to privacy. The state has a compelling interest in regulating the legal profession and ensuring that only those fit to practice law are admitted to the bar. Mental and emotional fitness are essential for the protection of the public. While the inquiry implicates the applicant's right to privacy, the Board employed the least intrusive means to achieve its compelling interest. The Board, not the applicant, must be the judge of what information is relevant to an applicant's fitness. The release is not a blanket waiver but is limited to information relevant to the applicant's character and fitness, and this information is held in confidence, which minimizes the intrusion. By applying for admission, the applicant places his mental and emotional condition at issue, thereby waiving the psychotherapist-patient privilege for communications relevant to that inquiry.

Dissenting - Adkins, J.

Yes. The Board's requirement violates the applicant's right to privacy because the question and release form are unnecessarily overbroad. While the state's interest is compelling, the means employed are not the least intrusive. A past emotional disturbance, such as one resulting from the loss of a parent or childhood amnesia, may be completely irrelevant to an applicant's present fitness to practice law. The inquiry should be narrowed by incorporating a time frame and by phrasing questions to elicit information that the medical community deems relevant to one's fitness to practice law. As it stands, the individual's significant privacy interest in their medical records outweighs the state's interest in such a broad and untailored inquiry.

Analysis:

This decision establishes that an applicant's right to privacy concerning mental health is significantly diminished when seeking admission to the legal profession. It grants state bar examiners broad authority to investigate an applicant's past, affirming that the state's interest in protecting the public from unfit attorneys is a compelling one that can override individual privacy rights. The ruling reinforces the principle that seeking a license for a position of public trust requires a greater degree of disclosure than would otherwise be permissible, placing the burden squarely on the applicant to demonstrate fitness and effectively waiving certain privileges as a condition of application.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Florida Board of Bar Examiners Re: Applicant (1983)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"