The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those with disabilities and should be used for no other purpose. These are not legal documents, and may not be used as legal authority. This transcript is not an official document of the Florida Supreme Court.

The Florida Bar v. Andrew James O'Connor

SC03-1738

 

CHIEF JUSTICE: GOOD MORNING.
 ONCE AGAIN, BEFORE CALLING THE
NEXT CASE, I WANT TO WELCOME
THE, A GROUP THAT JUST ARRIVED
FROM TRINITY CHRISTIAN ACADEMY.
 ARE THEY IN THE COURTROOM NOW? 
YES, WITH THEIR TEACHERS,
MS.^PAMELA PETERSON AND
MRS.^CHRISTINE BROWN. 
THIS IS YOUR GOVERNMENT CLASS,
AND WE WELCOME YOU. 
WE, ALSO, HAVE FROM THE CITY
UNIVERSITY OF WESTIN,
ACCOMPANIED BY JOEL SPAAS, THE
GROUP FROM DOWN IN THE WESTIN
AREA. 
WE HAVE GOT ANOTHER GROUP
COMING IN. 
SO I AM NOT SURE WE WILL HAVE
ENOUGH ROOM IN THE COURTROOM. 

 

THE NEXT CASE ON THE COURT'S
DOCKET IS THE FLORIDA BAR
VERSUS ANDREW JAMES O'CONNOR. 
MR.  O'CONNOR. 
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. 
ANDREW J. O'CONNOR PRO SE. 
CHIEF JUSTICE. 
MEMBERS OF THE FLORIDA SUPREME
COURT. 
I HAVE COME A LONG WAY TO BE
HERE TODAY, BOTH IN DISTANCE IN
TIME. 
I HAVE TRAVELED HERE FROM SANTA
FE, NEW MEXICO, AND IT HAS
TAKEN ME OVER 14 YEARS TO COME
BEFORE YOU, AND I THANK FOR YOU
GRANTING ME ORAL ARGUMENT IN
THIS CASE AND FOR AFFORDING ME THE
OPPORTUNITY TO STATE MY CASE IN
RESPONSE TO THE REFEREE'S
REPORT. 
THE FINDINGS IN THE REPORT ARE
ERRONEOUS, UNLAWFUL AND
UNJUSTIFIED, AND I SUGGEST THAT
THE COURT CONSIDER QUASHING THE
REFEREE'S REPORT IN THIS CASE
AND DISMISS THE DISCIPLINARY
PROCEEDINGS BASED UPON THE
FOLLOWING. 
JUSTICE: LET'S 
START WITH THE WHOLE NOTION OF
WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE A
MEMBER IN GOOD STANDING OF THE
FLORIDA BAR, AT THE TIME THAT
YOU APPLIED FOR THE LIMITED
ADMISSION IN NEW MEXICO. 
YES.  
JUSTICE: YOU WERE ACTUALLY
ON INACTIVE STATUS, RIGHT? 
THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR. 
JUSTICE: AND PRIOR TO THAT
YOU HAD BEEN PLACED ON
EMERGENCY SUSPENSION BY THIS
COURT. 
THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR. 
JUSTICE: AND SO WHY WERE NOT
THOSE TWO ACTIONS, WHY DID THEY
NOT MAKE YOU A MEMBER IN GOOD
STANDING OF THE BAR OF THE
STATE OF FLORIDA? 
WELL, RESPECTFULLY, JUSTICE
QUINCE, THE EMERGENCY
SUSPENSION WAS DISSOLVED IN
1993. 
JUSTICE: BY WHOM? 
THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT. 
I, THEY ARE IN THE PLEADINGS. 
WHEN THE MOTION FOR THE
PETITION FOR INACTIVE STATUS
FOR INCAPACITY NOT RELATED TO
MISCONDUCT, WAS GRANTED BY THIS
COURT, I BELIEVE IT WAS ON
JANUARY 13 OF 1993. 
THAT OPERATED TO DISSOLVE THE EMERGENCY
SUSPENSION. 
JUSTICE: WHAT RULE IS THAT? 
WHAT RULE WAS THE ORDER? 
JUSTICE: WHAT RULE WOULD
THAT SAY THAT THAT OPERATED TO
DISSOLVE THE SUSPENSION? 
WELL, I CAN'T CITE A RULE,
YOUR HONOR. 
I JUST KNOW THAT, BY ORDER OF
THIS COURT, I WAS NO LONGER
UNDER EMERGENCY SUSPENSION. 
JUSTICE: THERE WAS NO ORDER
ENTERED BY THIS COURT
DISSOLVING THE SUSPENSION. 
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE
SAYING, YOUR HONOR. 
JUSTICE: ACTUALLY WE ARE
ASKING YOU TO TRY TO FIND OUT
YOUR PERCEPTION. 
THERE IS NO ORDER DISSOLVING --
MY UNDERSTANDING WAS, YOUR
HONOR, WHEN THIS COURT GRANTED

 

ME INACTIVE STATUS FOR
INCAPACITY NOT RELATED TO
MISCONDUCT, THAT OPERATED TO
DISSOLVE THE EMERGENCY SUSPENSION. 
THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING. 
JUSTICE: BUT YOUR
UNDERSTANDING BASED ON WHAT? 
ON THE STATEMENT --
BASED ON WHEN THIS COURT
GRANTED ME INACTIVE STATUS FOR
INCAPACITY NOT RELATED TO
MISCONDUCT. 
THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT
THAT TOOK CARE OF THE EMERGENCY
SUSPENSION. 
THERE WAS A RULE THAT I CITE,
THE FLORIDA BAR HAD 60 DAYS
FROM WHEN THE EMERGENCY
SUSPENSION WAS ENTERED ON APRIL
30 OF 1992, TO FILE A COMPLAINT
IN THIS CASE. 
THAT WAS NEVER DONE. 
THAT WAS NOT DONE WITHIN THE 60
DAYS. 
AND IT WAS IN VIOLATION OF
RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA
BAR. 
I THINK THAT, ALSO, OPERATED,
IF IT PLEASE THE COURT, TO
DISSOLVE THE EMERGENCY
SUSPENSION AT THAT POINT AS
WELL. 
JUSTICE: WHAT DOES THE
ACTUAL LANGUAGE OF THE
SUSPENSION, ITSELF, SAY? 
DOESN'T IT SAY, BASICALLY, THAT
THE EMERGENCY SUSPENSION WILL
BE IN EFFECT UNTIL THIS COURT
ENTERS SOME FURTHER ORDER?
FURTHER ORDER OF THIS COURT.
 THAT'S CORRECT. 
AND MY INTERPRETATION, YOUR
HONOR, AGAIN, WAS ONCE THE
EMERGENCY SUSPENSION, ONCE THE
INACTIVE STATUS WAS GRANTED FOR
INCAPACITY NOT RELATED TO
MISCONDUCT, THAT WAS A FURTHER
ORDER OF THE COURT THAT
DISSOLVED THE EMERGENCY
SUSPENSION. 
JUSTICE: THE PAPERS THAT YOU
FILED WITH THE NEW MEXICO
COURT, ACTUALLY TOLD THAT COURT
THAT YOU WERE ATTACHING A
CERTIFICATE INDICATING THAT YOU
WERE IN GOOD STANDING, AND OF
COURSE THE CLERK OF THIS COURT
REGULARLY ACTUALLY ISSUES
CERTIFICATES LIKE THAT FOR USE
BY LAWYERS THAT ARE IN GOOD
STANDING, FOR VARIOUS PURPOSES.
 BUT THAT ATTACHMENT WAS NOT
THERE. 
THAT IS THAT, WHEN YOU SAID
ATTACHED HERE TO IS A
CERTIFICATE, DEMONSTRATING MY
GOOD STANDING WITH THE FLORIDA
BAR, THAT ATTACHMENT, LIKE
EXHIBIT A, EXHIBIT A WASN'T
THERE, WAS IT? 
WELL, JUSTICE ANSTEAD, I
WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO THAT. 
I WAS NOT AWARE THAT THERE WAS
AN ACTUAL GOOD STANDING
CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THIS
COURT. 
I WAS IN SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO,
AT THE TIME THAT I APPLIED FOR
THE LIMITED LICENSE BACK IN
2003. 
AND WHAT I DID IS, I ATTACHED A
COPY OF MY FLORIDA BAR CARD,
THE FRONT AND BACK AS THE
RECORD REFLECTS, AND THAT
SHOWED ME TO IN INACTIVE
STATUS. 
MY INTERPRETATION OF THAT WAS
THAT THAT SHOWED ME TO BE IN
GOOD STANDING, BECAUSE AGAIN,
ONCE THIS COURT GRANTED ME
INACTIVE STATUS FOR INCAPACITY
NOT RELATED TO MISCONDUCT, I
BELIEVED THAT I WAS NOT UNDER
EMERGENCY SUSPENSION. 
I THINK THAT THE COURT WOULD
AGREE WITH ME, TOO. 
IT APPEARS THAT YOU DID HAVE
CORRESPONDENCE AND PLEASE
CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG, THAT,
IN 1992 TO TRY TO BE REINSTATED
OR TO BECOME ACTIVE. 
WOULD YOU EXPLAIN ABOUT THAT? 
YES, YOUR HONOR. 
I WAS RETURNING BACK FROM
BOULDER, COLORADO, AT THE TIME,
TO RETURN TO TALLAHASSEE TO
WORK, AND I WANTED TO
REACTIVATE MY BAR, AND MY --
JUSTICE: DID THE BAR LET YOU
KNOW AT THAT TIME THAT YOU
WOULD HAVE TO PETITION THIS
COURT? 
NO, SIR. 
WHAT I WAS TOLD --
JUSTICE: DID THEY RETURN
YOUR PETITION AND MONEY? 
WHAT I WAS TOLD IS I CALLED
THE FLORIDA BAR AND I TALKED TO
AN ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
THERE AND SHE LOOKED UP MY
ACCOUNT AND TOLD ME ALL YOU
HAVE TO DO IS SEND US A CHECK,
AND SHE CALCULATED THE
AMOUNT OF MONEY, AND JUST FILL
OUT THIS APPLICATION, AND WE
WILL REACTIVATE YOU,
AND THAT IS WHAT I WAS TOLD TO
DO, AND I DID THAT, AND YOU ARE
CORRECT, YOUR HONOR, IT WAS
RETURNED TO ME WITH A CHECK. 
YES. 
CHIEF JUSTICE: AND ALSO A
LETTER THAT ADVISED YOU THAT
YOU HAD TO PETITION THE COURT
FOR REINSTATEMENT PURSUANT TO
RULE 3-710 AND A COPY OF THE
FLORIDA BAR MANUAL WAS
ENCLOSED. 
ISN'T THAT CORRECT? 
YES, YOUR HONOR. 
I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO
THOSE IF I COULD. 
CHIEF JUSTICE: SO DID YOU
READ THE MANUAL? 
NO, YOUR HONOR. 
I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND. 
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IS
THAT I KNOW THAT THE BAR'S
POSITION IS THAT IS WHAT
SUPPOSEDLY PUT MY ON NOTICE,
BUT I BELIEVE THAT I AM ALLOWED
TO, BECAUSE I WAS INACTIVE FOR
INCAPACITY NOT RELATED TO
MISCONDUCT, THAT I AM ALLOWED
TO APPLY FOR THE SUMMARY
PROCEDURE TO REACTIVATE MY BAR,
JUST AS ANY INACTIVE MEMBER
WOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO. 
THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE
RULE. 
CHIEF JUSTICE: WELL, YOU
JUST, LET'S JUST, THIS ISSUE
ABOUT WHAT HAPED IN 1992, TO
CAUSE THE BAR TO FILE A
PETITION FOR EMERGENCY
SUSPENSION WITH THE COURT? 
ALLEGATIONS PRETTY SERIOUS
ALLEGATIONS. 
YES, YOUR HONOR. 
CHIEF JUSTICE: THEY WERE
SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS. 
THE ALLEGATIONS WERE
SERIOUS, YOUR HONOR, THEY WERE.
 THEY INVOLVED AN EX-GIRLFRIEND
THAT I LIVED WITH AT THE TIME,
AND SHE HAD GOT A DOMESTIC
RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST ME,
AND THAT IS BASICALLY, SUMS UP THE
ALLEGATION, AND THAT IS WHY THE
EMERGENCY SUSPENSION CAME DOWN
ON APRIL 30, 1992. 
CHIEF JUSTICE: IT WOULD
APPEAR THAT THE COURT, BECAUSE
YOU WERE IN THIS SERIOUS CAR
ACCIDENT THAT INCAPACITATED, RATHER THAN
CONTINUE AT THAT TIME WITH THE
EMERGENCY SUSPENSION AND THE
UNDERLYING ACTION, IT WAS A
GRANTING OF THE PLACEMENT ON
THE INACTIVE LIST, FOR
INCAPACITY. 
BUT DID YOU THINK AT THAT
TIME THAT THE UNDERLYING
PETITION THAT ALLEGED THESE VERY SERIOUS ACTIONS WAS
JUST GOING TO BE FORGOTTEN? 
I WOULD LIKE TO ANSWER THAT
IN TWO PARTS. 
THE FIRST PART WAS THAT, WHEN
THE, THE SHORT ANSWER, YES, I
DID. 
WHEN I WAS GRANTED INACTIVE
STATUS FOR MEDICAL INCAPACITY
NOT RELATED TO MISCONDUCT, MY
UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THAT
TOOK CARE OF THE EMERGENCY
SUSPENSION, AND IN FACT MY
FORMER LAWYER WAS HERE THIS
MORNING, MR.  TOZIAN, AND THAT
IS WHO TOLD ME OR I UNDERSTOOD
IT FROM HIM, THAT I WAS NO
LONGER UNDER EMERGENCY
SUSPENSION. 
CHIEF JUSTICE: DID HE
TESTIFY IN THIS CASE? 
HE DID NOT. 
CHIEF JUSTICE: WELL, AGAIN,
I THINK THAT YOU ARE
REPRESENTING YOURSELF. 
RIGHT NOW YOU ARE, YOU
OBVIOUSLY PASSED THE BAR. 
YOU KNOW THAT WE CAN'T CONSIDER
EVIDENCE THAT WASN'T IN THE
RECORD. 
I APOLOGIZE. 
I WAS JUST TRYING TO ANSWER
YOUR QUESTION, YOUR HONOR. 
CHIEF JUSTICE: LET'S ANSWER
IT WITH WHAT IS IN THE RECORD. 
THE ANSWER IS, YES, THAT I
UNDERSTOOD THAT, ONCE THE
EMERGENCY, ONCE THE INACTIVE
STATUS WAS GRANTED, THE
PETITION FOR INACTIVE STATUS,
AGAIN FOR INCAPACITY NOT
RELATED TO MISCONDUCT, IN 1994,
THAT THAT DID AWAY OR INVOLVED
THE EMERGENCY SUSPENSION, YES. 
JUSTICE: THE GIST OF THE
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US NOW ARE
WHY SHOULD WE NOT APPROVE THE
FINDINGS OF THE RECORD? 
YES, I UNDERSTAND THAT,
JUSTICE ANSTEAD, AND I HAVE
SOME CASE LAW I WOULD LIKE TO
CITE. 
BASICALLY THE RECOMMENDED
DISCIPLINE IN THIS CASE IS FAR
IN EXCESS OF ANY PRIOR
DISCIPLINE EVER IMPOSED FOR A
CASE OF THIS NATURE. 
IN FACT, THE RECOMMENDED
DISCIPLINE IN THIS CASE SUN
PRECEDENTED UNDER FLORIDA
DISCIPLINARY CASE LAW. 
THERE IS SIMPLY NO PRECEDENT OR
AUTHORITY IN THE LAW TO DISBAR
AN INACTIVE MEMBER OF THE
FLORIDA BAR FOR ONE SINGLE
SPURIOUS ALLEGATION OF A
MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION, AND
LET'S BE CLEAR, HERE, YOUR
HONOR, THERE WAS NO MATERIAL
MISREPRESENTATION. 
JUSTICE: WERE YOU ALSO
PROVIDED A COPY OF THE
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT OF THE
REFEREE? 
YES, YOUR HONOR. 
AND I WANT TO ADDRESS THAT
RIGHT NOW. 
I WANT TO SINCERELY APOLOGIZE
TO THE COURT, JUDGE DEKKER,
THE FLORIDA BAR COUNSEL FOR MY
VERY INTEMPERATE REMARKS, AND I
AM SINCERELY SORRY I SAID
THOSE. 
THEY REFLECT MY FRUSTRATION
AT THE TIME. 
I FELT LIKE I WAS BEING TREATED
UNFAIRLY, AND IF I COULD TAKE
THAT BACK, JUDGE, I WOULD. 
AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE FOR THOSE
INTEMPERATE REMARKS. 
JUSTICE: MR.  O'CONNOR, IT
SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT SPUN OUT OF
CONTROL. 
INITIALLY --
I AM SORRY. 
JUSTICE: IT SEEMS AS IF THIS
IS SOMETHING THAT HAS SPUN OUT
OF CONTROL, AND IN LOOKING
BACK, THERE MAY BE SOME BASIS
TO DISCUSS SOME OF THESE
THINGS, BUT THE TROUBLESOME
PART IS A CONTINUOUS AGGRESSIVE
STAND WITH REGARD TO THINGS
SUCH AS THE RULE ON INACTIVE
STATUS, IS REALLY PRETTY CLEAR
THAT YOU HAVE TO BE
DUES-PAYING. 
IT DOES NOT INCLUDE INACTIVE. 
THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. 
SO IT SEEMS ALMOST AS THOUGH
THIS HAS BEEN, BECOME A BATTLE
RATHER THAN TRYING TO RESOLVE A
PROBLEM, AND I AM CONCERNED
ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE APPARENTLY
YOU DO HAVE SOME GOOD
INTENTIONS SOMEPLACE IN TRYING
TO BE A PUBLIC DEFENDER IN NEW
MEXICO, AND YOU HAVE DONE SOME
THING WITH KIDS, BUT THAT
DOESN'T EXCUSE THE
REPRESENTATION TO THE NEW
MEXICO COURT. 
COULD YOU ADDRESS THAT, PLEASE.
YES, YOUR HONOR. 
I WOULD LIKE TO. 
WELL, THE FIRST THING I WANT TO
SAY IS THAT WHAT I WAS CHARGED
WITH, I GUESS YOU ARE REFERRING
TO THE BATTLE BETWEEN MYSELF
AND THE FLORIDA BAR. 
IS THAT --
JUSTICE: RIGHT. 
AS THE THING HAS ALL DEVELOPED
AND IT HAS
ESCALATED, AND IT SEEMS
UNNECESSARILY. 
I BELIEVE BOTH SIDES WERE
INVOLVED IN THAT. 
IT WAS PROTRACTED AND IT
DRAGGED ON AND ON AND THERE WAS
A LOT OF ANIMUS IN THIS
CASE. 
ALL I CAN SAY IS BECAUSE THIS
HAS GONE ON FOR 14 YEARS, I
FELT LIKE I HAD BEEN UNFAIRLY
TREATED BY THE BAR AND I FELT
THAT I HAD TO FIGHT WITH
EVERYTHING I HAD AND DO THE
BEST I COULD, TO COUNTER WHAT I
FEEL TODAY IS A FALSE
ALLEGATION. 
I WOULD LIKE TO READ YOU THE
CHARGE IF I COULD. 
CHIEF JUSTICE: WHAT I MIGHT
SUGGEST, SINCE YOU HAVE LIMITED
TIME, AND YOU ARE IN YOUR
REBUTTAL. 
OF COURSE WE HAVE THE CHARGE,
AND YOU MAY WANT TO SAVE THE
REST OF YOUR TIME FOR REBUTTAL.
 BECAUSE --
I WANT TO SAY VERY QUICKLY,
YOUR HONOR, WHAT THE BAR
CHARGED ME WITH IS THAT YOU DID
NOT DISCLOSE THAT YOU WERE
UNDER EMERGENCY SUSPENSION.
THAT IS WHAT THIS CASE WAS ABOUT.
THE BAR
WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE TODAY
THAT I AM STILL UNDER EMERGENCY
SUSPENSION, WHICH IS NOT TRUE,
AND THAT IS WHY THERE WAS NO
MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION. 
JUSTICE: YOUR PRIVILEGE TO
PRACTICE LAW IN THE STATE OF
NEW MEXICO HAS BEEN REVOKED? 
YES, YOUR HONOR. 
IT WAS REVOKED WITHIN 24 HOURS
OF WHEN THE LIMITED LICENSE WAS
ISSUED AND I LOST MY JOB AS A
PUBLIC DEFENDER OVER THIS. 
JUSTICE: OTHER THAN FLORIDA AND NEW
MEXICO, HAVE YOU PRACTICED LAW
OR ATTEMPTED TO PRACTICE LAW IN
ANY OTHER JURISDICTION? 
NO, YOUR HONOR, I HAVE NOT. 
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. 
I AM TIFFANY COLLINS, BAR
COUNSEL WITH THE FLORIDA BAR. 
ANDREW JAMES O'CONNOR SHOULD BE
DISBARRED FROM THE PRACTICE OF
LAW IN FLORIDA, BECAUSE HE MADE
A MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION TO
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO
AND HAS DEMONSTRATE ADD VERY
HOSTILE DISRESPECTFUL AND
BELLIGERENT TONE THROUGHOUT
THESE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
THOSE TWO FACTS COUPLED
TOGETHER WARRANT DISBARMENT. 
JUSTICE: AT WHAT POINT DID
THE BAR CONCLUDE THAT
DISBARMENT IS THE REMEDY HERE? 
WAS IT BEFORE ALL OF THIS
HOSTILITY AROSE OR WAS IT AFTER
IT? 
BECAUSE THIS, YOU KNOW, IT
SEEMS AS THOUGH THIS IS REALLY,
AND I WOULD POSE THE SAME
QUESTION TO YOU, THIS SEEMS TO
BE SOMETHING THAT JUST GOT
TOTALLY OUT OF HAND. 
I WOULD CONCEDE THAT, YOUR
HONOR, THIS HAS BEEN A VERY
PROTRACTED AND VERY DIFFICULT
CASE. 
HOWEVER, THE FLORIDA BAR HAS
BEEN OF THE OPINION, BASED UPON
THE NATURE OF THIS MISCONDUCT,
THE EGREGIOUS NATURE OF THIS
MISCONDUCT, A MATERIAL
MISREPRESENTATION TO A SUPREME
COURT, WE FIND THAT TO BE, TO
WARRANT DISBARMENT. 
JUSTICE: IS THERE ANY
INFORMATION IN THE RECORD WITH
REGARD TO SOMETHING THAT MAY
HAVE CAUSED THAT? 
ANY TYPE OF PERSONAL ISSUES TO
THE RESPONDENT, HEALTH ISSUES? 
ANYTHING LIKE THAT THAT WE
SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THAT IS IN
THIS RECORD THAT PRECIPITATED
THIS KIND OF EVENT? 
ABSENT THE FACT THAT THE
RESPONDENT WAS INVOLVED IN A
VERY SERIOUS ACCIDENT AND THAT
WAS MADE KNOWN TO THE REFEREE
--
JUSTICE: FULLY RECOVERED
FROM THAT, AS FAR AS THE
EVIDENCE IS CONCERNED? 
AS FAR AS THE FLORIDA BAR
HAD ANY INFORMATION, WE ASSUME
THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD
RECOVERED, AS HE WAS WORKING IN
THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN NEW
MEXICO. 
JUSTICE: DOES HE
HAVE ANY KIND OF MENTAL OR
EMOTIONAL PROBLEMS, AT THE TIME
THAT THE EMERGENCY SUSPENSION
WAS SOUGHT BY THE FLORIDA BAR? 
THERE WERE ALLEGATIONS TO
THAT EFFECT. 
I MUST SAY, JUSTICE QUINCE,
THAT DURING THE DISCIPLINARY
PHASE, BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT
THE UNDERLYING ALLEGATIONS AS
IT PERTAINS TO THE EMERGENCY
SUSPENSION, WERE NEVER
ADJUDICATED, THE FLORIDA BAR
WAS HESITANT TO GO INTO THOSE
ALLEGATIONS, SO AT THE REFEREE
LEVEL, WE SIMPLY INDICATED TO
THE REFEREE THAT THE RESPONDENT
WAS PLACED ON EMERGENCY
SUSPENSION WITHOUT DELVING
FURTHER INTO THE ALLEGATIONS. 
JUSTICE: WHAT HAPPENED WITH
THE ORDER THAT WAS ENTERED THAT
SAID THAT THE BAR WOULD HAVE 60
DAYS TO BRING CHARGES, AFTER
THE RESPONDENT NOTIFIED THE BAR
AND THE COURT THAT HE WAS
SUFFICIENTLY RECOVERED FROM THE
INJURIES SUSTAINED? 
I BELIEVE IN AN AUTOMOBILE
ACCIDENT. 
THAT HE COULD PARTICIPATE IN
THOSE PROCEEDINGS, AND WE HAVE
THAT NOTIFICATION BY HIS
LAWYER, AND THEN WE HAVE NO
PROSECUTION OF THOSE CHARGES
AFTER THAT, THE 60 DAYS DID
EXPIRE, SO WHAT IS THE BAR'S
POSITION ABOUT ITS ABILITY TO
PROSECUTE THOSE CHARGES WHICH
WERE THE UNDERLYING CHARGES FOR
THE SUSPENSION? 
WHAT IS THE BAR'S POSITION, AS
FAR AS ITS AUTHORITY TO
PROSECUTE THOSE CHARGES? 
WHAT ARE WE, 14 YEARS LATER OR
WHATEVER? 
YES. 
IT ACTUALLY HAS BEEN 14 YEARS. 
JUSTICE: SO AFTER THE 60
DAYS EXPIRED, THE BAR DID NOT
BRING THE CHARGES, SO ISN'T THE
BAR PROHIBITED, NOW, FROM
PROSECUTING THOSE CHARGES THAT
WERE CONTEMPLATED AT THE TIME? 
THE BAR WOULD RESPECTFULLY
SUBMIT THAT WE DO STILL HAVE
THE ABILITY. 
I AM UNSURE AS TO WHETHER OR
NOT A DECISION WOULD GO FORWARD
IN TERMS OF MOVING FORWARD WITH
THOSE UNDERLYING ALLEGATIONS,
IN TERMS, BECAUSE OF PATS AGE
OF TIME NOW. 
HOW COULD THE BAR GO FORWARD
ON THOSE CHARGES, IF IT IS VERY
CLEAR THAT THEY WERE GIVEN 60
DAYS AFTER A NOTICE AND WE ALL
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE NOTICE WAS
FILED. 
THE 60 DAYS EXPIRED. 
THERE IS NO PROSECUTION, SO HOW
CAN THE BAR GO FORWARD ON THE
CHARGES? 
AS I WAS SAYING, I DO NOT
BELIEVE THE FLORIDA BAR WOULD
MOVE FORWARD WITH. 
THAT I THINK BASED UPON THE
FACT THAT WE DID NOT FILE THE
COMPLAINT EFFECT THAT WE HAVE
CONCEDED THROUGHOUT THESE
PROCEEDINGS AND MADE KNOWN TO
THE REFEREE, I THINK THAT IT
WOULD BE HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT
THE FLORIDA BAR --
JUSTICE: WHY WOULDN'T IT BE
A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION,
THEN, BY MR.  O'CONNOR, THAT IF
THE BAR COULDN'T PROSECUTE THE
UNDERLYING CHARGES THAT WERE
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TEMPORARY
SUSPENSION, THAT THE, IN EFFECT
THE SUSPENSION WAS DISSIPATED,
WHEN THE INACTIVE STATUS WAS
AGREED TO AND THE 60 DAYS
EXPIRED? 
WHY WOULDN'T THAT BE A
REASONABLE POSITION TO TAKE? 
THE FLORIDA BAR WOULD SUBMIT
THAT THE MERE FACT THAT THE
RESPONDENT FILED A MOTION TO
HAVE THAT EMERGENCY SUSPENSION
DISSOLVED, THAT MOTION WAS
DENIED, AND BASED ON THE
LANGUAGE IN THE EMERGENCY
SUSPENSION ORDER WHICH
INDICATED THAT HE WAS UNDER
EMERGENCY SUSPENSION UNTIL
FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT, AND

 

THIS COURT HAS NOT, SINCE THEN,
ISSUED AN ANY ORDER LIFTING
THAT SUSPENSION, SO THEREFORE
IT WOULD BE THE ARGUMENT OF THE
FLORIDA BAR. 
JUSTICE: BY VERY, ALMOST
DEFINITION, THE SUSPENSION
REALLY RESTED ON THE EFFICACY
OF THE UNDERLYING CHARGES, AND
THE UNDERLYING CHARGES WENT A
WAYS, EITHER BY THE VOLUNTARY
DISMISSAL BY THE BAR OR BY
OPERATION OF EFFECT OF OUR
ORDER THAT SAID THE BAR HAS 60
DAYS TO PROSECUTE, WHY WOULD
THE SUSPENSION STAY IN PLACE,
IF IT WAS DEPENDENT ON A
PROCEEDING THAT, THEN,
AUTOMATICALLY WAS DISMISSED BY
OPERATION OF LAW, AFTER 60 DAYS?
WELL, BASED UPON THE
LANGUAGE IN THE RULE, THE RULES
DON'T INDICATE THAT AN
EMERGENCY SUSPENSION WOULD
DISSOLVE, AND, AGAIN, BASED
UPON THE LANGUAGE IN THE ORDER
WHICH INDICATED THAT THE
SUSPENSION WAS EFFECTIVE UNTIL
FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT. 
JUSTICE: WHAT EFFECT DID THE
PETITION FOR INACTIVE STATUS,
BECAUSE OUR TIME LINE IS
NOVEMBER, THIS COURT, NOVEMBER
OF '93, DENIED LIFTING OF
SUSPENSION. 
BUT THEN, WITHIN 30 DAYS, OR
THEREABOUTS, IN TEST OF '93, IS
WHEN THE PETITION TO BECOME
INACTIVE WAS FILED. 
SO WHAT EFFECT, IF ANY, DOES
THE FLORIDA BAR, WOULD IT HAVE
HAD JURISDICTION OR IS THERE A
RULE THAT WOULD APPLY TO HAVE
PROSECUTED THIS SUSPENSION
WHILE HE IS IN AN INACTIVE
STATUS OR NOT? 
IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT,
BASED UPON THE RULES, THE
FLORIDA BAR WOULD HAVE HAD THE
ABILITY TO DO SO, BUT --
JUSTICE: WOULD HAVE HAD THE
AUTHORITY. 
YES. 
JUSTICE: WHAT --
CHIEF JUSTICE: LET ME JUST,
IF HE HAD APPLIED FOR
REINSTATEMENT, WHAT, THAN IS I
GUESS WHAT WE ARE ALL
STRUGGLING WITH, WHAT WOULD
HAVE BEEN THE EFFECT OF THIS
PRIOR EMERGENCY SUSPENSION,
BASED ON CONDUCT THAT YOU SAY
THAT IN THIS CASE, THE FLORIDA
BAR STAYED AWAY FROM BECAUSE
THEY DIDN'T KNOW THE STATUS?
IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT WOULD
HE HAVE TO HAVE DEMONSTRATED TO
HAVE
INACTIVE STATUS? 
IF THIS HADN'T HAPPENED WITH
NEW MEXICO AND MISREPRESENTING
HIS STATUS, AND HE HAD APPLIED
FOR REINSTATEMENT, WHAT WOULD
HE HAVE HAD TO GO THROUGH, TO
BE REINSTATED? 
THERE IS A ENTIRE PROCESS,
AND THE RESPONDENT WOULD HAVE
HAD TO SHOW BY CLEAR AND
CONVINCING EVIDENCE, THAT HE
HAD THE FITNESS TO PRACTICE LAW
IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA. 
CHIEF JUSTICE: IS IT YOUR
POSITION THAT THE BAR WOULD
HAVE GONE BACK AND REENACTED OR
REACTIVATED THESE 1992 CHARGES?
I AM HESITANT TO SAY THAT,
BECAUSE THAT IS A DECISION THAT
WOULD BE MADE ABOVE MY LEVEL. 
HOWEVER, I THINK THAT IS A MERE
FACT THAT HE WAS PLACED ON
EMERGENCY SUSPENSION, I THINK
THAT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A
FACTOR THAT THE REFEREE
REVIEWING THE CASE WOULD HAVE
CONSIDERED. 
JUSTICE: LET ME ASK YOU
THIS. 
CHIEF JUSTICE: I THINK I
INTERRUPTED EITHER JUSTICE
QUINCE OR JUSTICE ANSTEAD. 
WELL, I WAS VERY CONCERNED
ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE
DEFENDANT HAD IN FACT, WITHIN A
MONTH OR SO OF THE TIME THAT
HE, WE DENIED HIS MOTION TO
LIFT THE EMERGENCY SUSPENSION,
THEN ASKED INSTEAD, TO BE PUT
ON THE INACTIVE LIST, WHICH, I
AM A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED HERE
AS TO HE SENT A NOTICE THAT
SAID HE WAS READY TO
PARTICIPATE BUT WANTED THE
EMERGENCY SUSPENSION LIFTED. 
THIS WAS ALL DONE AT ONE TIME? 
YES, YOUR HONOR. 
AND THEN BECAUSE WE DID NOT
LIFT THE EMERGENCY SUSPENSION,
HE ASKED FOR INACTIVE STATUS OR
HOW DID THAT ALL WORK? 
THE PETITION FOR PLACEMENT
ON INACTIVE STATUS WAS THE
MOTION TO HAVE THE EMERGENCY
SUSPENSION DISSOLVED AND THE
FLORIDA BAR DID NOT OBJECT TO
HIS BEING PLACED ON THE
INACTIVE LIST, SO THAT WOULD
HAVE THEN ACHIEVED THE RESULT
OF THE RESPONDENT NOT BEING
ABLE TO PRACTICE LAW AND HAVING
TO, THEN, GO THROUGH THE
REINSTATEMENT PROCESS. 
THERE IS NO RULE THAT, OR IS
THERE A RULE THAT TALKS ABOUT
WHAT HAPPENS WITH AN EMERGENCY
SUSPENSION, WHEN SOMEONE THEN
GOES INACTIVE? 
NO, MA'AM. 
THERE IS NOT. 
THE RULES ARE SILENT. 
THIS IS A VERY UNIQUE CASE. 
JUSTICE: GETTING BACK TO THE
EMERGENCY SUSPENSION, THE BAR
HAD 60 DAYS TO FILE CHARGES. 
SO I AM WONDERING HOW, IF THE
BAR DID NOT FILE CHARGES WITHIN
60 DAYS, MR.  O'CONNOR WAS
SUPPOSED TO CHALLENGE THE
ALLEGATIONS OF THE BAR TO HAVE
THIS EMERGENCY SUSPENSION
LIFTED, IF THERE AREN'T ANY,
THERE IS NO COMPLAINT AND THERE
IS NO FORUM, APPARENTLY, IN
WHICH TO LITIGATE THE ISSUE. 
THERE IS NO FORUM AND I
UNDERSTAND AS PERTAINS TO THE
EMERGENCY SUSPENSION. 
THE RESPONDENT DID
NOT FILE A SUBSEQUENT MOTION TO
HAVE THE EMERGENCY SUSPENSION
DENIED. 
THERE WAS AN EMERGENCY
SUSPENSION. 
JUSTICE: BUT ISN'T THAT TOO
MUCH TO HAVE ASK OF EVERY
LAWYER TO RELY UPON, IF THERE
IS A 60-DAY PERIOD, AND IF THE
BAR DOESN'T TAKE IT UP, I MEAN,
THE BAR IS DOING THE
PROSECUTING HERE, TO EXPECT
THAT THERE COULD BE SOME
RELIANCE ON THE FACT THAT THE
BAR DIDN'T DO THAT. 
AND THEN GOES FORWARD AND
ALLOWS THE PERSON TO GO ON
INACTIVE STATUS. 
ISN'T THAT COMBINATION
SOMETHING THAT PUTS SOME, THAT
RESPONSIBILITY ON THE BAR? 
ABSOLUTELY, AND THE BAR HAS
CONCEDED AS I SAID THROUGHOUT
THESE PROCEEDINGS, THAT THE BAR
FAILED TO FILE A COMPLAINT
WITHIN THE 60-DAY TIME PERIOD. 
THE RESPONDENT DID NOTIFY US OF
HIS ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN
THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE BAR DID
NOT, BECAUSE HE SUCCESSFULLY
SOUGHT LEAVE TO BE PLACED ON
THE INACTIVE STATUS LIST. 
CHIEF JUSTICE: I GUESS,
MAYBE, AND MAYBE THIS IS IN
TERMS OF INTENT, IF HE REALLY
WENT ON THE INACTIVE LIST, HE
HAD A SERIOUS ACCIDENT WHICH
WAS INCAPACITATING BOTH
PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY. 
IT APPEARS THAT PRIOR TO THAT,
THIS EMERGENCY SUSPENSION
PROBABLY WAS RELATED TO SOME
MENTAL ISSUES THAT HE WAS
HAVING, BUT SOMEHOW IF HE WAS,
BUT FOR THE EMERGENCY
SUSPENSION, WOULD THE BAR TAKE
THE SAME POSITION IF HE SIMPLY
HAD BEEN IN THE ACCIDENT,
AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT, HE HAD
BEEN PLACED ON THE INACTIVE
LIST FOR INCAPACITY, AND STILL
DID THE SAME THING WITH THE NEW
MEXICO SUPREME COURT, IN OTHER
WORDS REPRESENTED THAT HE WAS
IN GOOD STANDING, OR IS IT THE
ADDITION OF WHAT HAD PRECEDED
THE PETITION TO BE PLACED ON
THE INACTIVE LIST, THAT SORT OF
IS THE UNDER CURRENT IN THIS
CASE, AND I THINK THAT IS AN
IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE. 
IN OTHER WORDS, THAT THAT, TAKE
THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE 1992
MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION, JUST
THAT HE IS PLACED ON INACTIVE
STATUS AND NEVER REAPPLIES AND
NOW HE GOES OUT TO HUH NEXT
COAND GIVES HIS BAR CARD THAT
SHOWS HE IS INACTIVE AND HE IS
ALSO IN GOOD STANDING. 
WOULD THE BAR STILL SEEK
DISBARMENT FOR THAT? 
YES, MA'AM, THE BAR COULD
STILL SEEK DISBARMENT BASED
UPON THE NATURE OF THE CONDUCT
AND IN CONTRARY TO THE NATURE
OF THE REPRESENTATION, THE
FLORIDA BAR DID NOT PREMISE THE
FACT THAT THERE HAD BEEN AN
EMERGENCY SUSPENSION. 
A CAREFUL REVIEW OF 3-13,
WHICH DOES NOT DEAL WITH
MISCONDUCT, CLEARLY INDICATES
THAT THOSE MEMBERS WHO ARE
LISTED ON THIS LIST FOUGHT IN
CAPACITY MUST GO THROUGH THE
REINSTATEMENT PROCESS AND THE
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND
TESTIMONY OF THE RESPONDENT AT
THE REFEREE LEVEL CLEARLY
INDICATED THAT HE WAS PUT ON
NOTICE, ACTUAL AND
CONSTRUCTIVE, AND THE FACT THAT
HE WAS AWARE THAT HE HAD TO GO
THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND THE
PLAIN READING OF THESE RULES
INDICATES THAT THOSE MEMBERS
WHO ARE INACTIVE ARE NOT
MEMBERS IN GOOD STANDING,
CLEARLY INDICATES THAT HE KNEW
WHEN HE MADE THAT
MISREPRESENTATION TO THE NEW
MEXICO SUPREME COURT. 
JUSTICE: IS IT THE BAR'S
POSITION THAT HE SIMPLY REFUSED TO FOLLOW
THE PROCEDURES OF THE BAR FOR
REINSTATEMENT OF ANY ATTORNEY
WHO IS PLACED ON THE INACTIVE LIST. 
IS THAT THE POSITION OF THE
BAR? 
YES. 
THAT'S CORRECT. 
JUSTICE: HAS THE BAR
PREVIOUSLY, IF THAT IS THE ONLY
ISSUE, SOUGHT DISBARMENT OF AN
INDIVIDUAL VERSUS A SUSPENSION
FOR FAILING TO GET REINSTATED? 
IT SEEMS LIKE IT IS KIND OF A
DRACONIAN MEASURE, IF ALL WE
ARE TALKING ABOUT IS THE FACT
THAT YOU ARE IN ACTIVE, YOU
DIDN'T GET REINSTATED, TO
DISBAR, SOME VERSUS SUSPENDING
SOMEBODY. 
WELL, THE BAR'S POSITION IS
THAT THE RESPONDENT KNEW THAT
HE WAS NOT A MEMBER IN GOOD
STANDING, AND MADE A MATERIAL
MISREPRESENTATION WHEN HE
ATTACHED HIS BAR CARD, CLEARLY
THE APPLICATION INDICATED THAT
A CERTIFICATE OF MEMBERSHIP IN
GOOD STANDING WAS TO BE
ATTACHED AND THE RESPONDENT
ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE ATTACHED A
BAR CARD. 
THE FLORIDA BAR RELIES UPON THE
CASE OF THE FLORIDA BAR V
WEBER, WHOSE FACTS ARE VERY
SIMILAR TO THE INSTANT CASES,
IN THAT AN ATTORNEY ADMITED IN
THE DISTINCT OF COLUMBIA AND
FLORIDA SOUGHT ADMISSION TO THE
MICRONESIA BAR AND
THE REPUBLIC OF PULAU, AND HE
DID NOT OBTAIN THOSE
CERTIFICATIONS AND THOSE POINTS
ARE CLEARLY ON POINT WITH THE
INSTANT CASE, AND WITH THAT
POINT --
JUSTICE: THIS CASE MAY BE
ANALOGOUS, AND WHETHER THERE IS
A MATERIAL DIFFERENCE OR NOT
NOT SAYING THAT YOU ARE
SUSPENDED SOMEWHERE BECAUSE YOU
ENGAGED IN MISCONDUCT, AND NOT
SAYING YOU ARE INACTIVE FOR
OTHER THAN MISCONDUCT, WHICH IS
APPARENTLY WHAT HE WAS INACTIVE
FOR. 
IN THOSE CASES, HE WAS
SUSPENDED IN FLORIDA, CORRECT? 
YES. 
JUSTICE: IN THIS CASE HE WAS
NOT SUSPENDED IN FLORIDA,
WHETHER THAT ULTIMATELY MAKES A
DIFFERENCE LEGALLY, I DON'T
KNOW, BUT AT LEAST FACTUALLY IT
SEEMS TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. 
WELL, IN BOTH CASES THE
ATTORNEYS WERE NOT MEMBERS IN
GOOD STANDING AND PURPOSEFULLY
CONCEALED THOSE FACTS TO OBTAIN
ADMISSION TO THE RESPECTIVE BAR
ASSOCIATIONS. 
CHIEF JUSTICE: THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. 
YOUR RESPONSE, MR. 
O'CONNOR. 
REBUTTAL, YOUR HONOR. 
THE FIRST THING I WANT TO SAY
IS THAT THE CASE THAT THE BAR
REFERS TO, THAT ATTORNEY WAS
UNDER EMERGENCY SUSPENSION OR
UNDER SUSPENSION. 
I WAS NOT UNDER EMERGENCY
SUSPENSION. 
JUSTICE: LET'S JUST ASSUME
FOR THE MOMENT THAT YOU WERE
NOT UNDER ANY SUSPENSION, THAT
YOUR EMERGENCY SUSPENSION WAS
LIFTED. 
YOU WERE STILL ININACTIVE
STATUS. 
APPARENTLY THE BAR SENT YOU
SOME MATERIALS ABOUT THIS IS
HOW YOU GET REINSTATED AND YOU
HAVE TO GET REINSTATED, IN
ORDER TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
BAR. 
YOU, THEN, TOLD THE NEW MEXICO
SUPREME COURT THAT YOU WERE A
MEMBER IN GOOD STANDING. 
YOU DIDN'T, YOU DID NOT TAMPA
CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING. 
YOU DIDN'T OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE
IN GOOD STANDING. 
WHY IS THAT NOT A VIOLATION OF
THE FLORIDA BAR RULES? 
WELL, JUSTICE CANTERO, WHAT
I WANTED TO SAY IN REGARD TO
THAT IS THAT I DID NOT KNOW
THAT I WAS NOT IN GOOD
STANDING. 
JUSTICE: WHAT IS UNCLEAR
ABOUT THE RULE THAT SAYS YOU
HAVE TO BE DUES PAGAN YOU
CANNOT BE ON INACTIVE STATUS,
TO BE IN GOOD STANDING? 
THAT, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH
THAT. 
PLEASE FACTOR THAT IN. 
JUSTICE LEWIS, I WOULD LIKE
ADDRESS. 
THAT AGAIN, MY UNDERSTANDING
WAS THAT I WAS GOING BY WHAT
THE ORDER OF THIS COURT SAID,
AND WHAT IT STATED WAS MY
STATUS WAS INACTIVE FOR
INCAPACITY NOT RELATED TO
MISCONDUCT. 
I EQUATED THAT WITH NOT BEING
IN BAD STANDING. 
AND I, ALSO, EQUATED THE FACT
THAT I WAS NOT UNDER EMERGENCY
SUSPENSION, SO WHEN I AM TOLD
THAT I AM INCAPACITATED FOR,
NOT FOR MISCONDUCT, TO ME THAT
IS EQUATED WITH, RESPECTFULLY,
NOT BEING IN BAD STANDING. 
SO I DID NOT KNOW --
JUSTICE: NOTWITHSTANDING THE
RULE ON GOOD STANDING. 
YES, YOUR HONOR. 
THERE WAS A CONFLICT. 
I WANT TO, ALSO --
JUSTICE: PLEASE ANSWER
JUSTICE CANTERO'S REMAINING
QUESTION. 
I INTERRUPTED. 
I AM SORRY. 
I LOST THE QUESTION, YOUR
HONOR. 
MY QUESTION IS WHY WASN'T IT
A VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA BAR
RULES, JUST SIMPLY NOT BECOMING
AN ACTIVE MEMBER OF THE FLORIDA
BAR BEFORE APPLYING TO THE
SUPREME COURT AND THEN TELLING
THE NEW MEXICO SUPREME COURT
THAT YOU ARE A MEMBER IN GOOD
STANDING OF THE FLORIDA BAR? 
BECAUSE I DID NOT BELIEVE
THAT I HAD TO BE REACTIVATED OR A MEMBER IN
GOOD STANDING OF THE FLORIDA
BAR. 
MY INTENT WAS TO STAY AND WORK
AS A PUBLIC DEFENDER IN NEW
MEXICO, SO I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND
OR KNOW THAT I SHOULD COME BACK
TO FLORIDA AND BE AN ACTIVE
MEMBER OF THE FLORIDA BAR. 
JUSTICE: HAD YOU GONE
THROUGH THE BAR PROCESS IN NEW
MEXICO? 
MA'AM? 
JUSTICE: HAD YOU GONE
THROUGH THE BAR PROCESS IN NEW
MEXICO? 
I DID NOT. 
JUSTICE: SO IN ORDER TO AND
PUBLIC DEFENDER, DID YOU THINK
THAT YOU HAD TO BE A MEMBER OF
A BAR? 
I THOUGHT I REQUESTED
BECAUSE I WAS INACTIVE. 
CHIEF JUSTICE: YOU PAID DUES
IN THE TEN YEARS? 
NO. 
CHIEF JUSTICE: DID YOU GO TO
TAKE CLE REQUIREMENTS? 
NO. 
IN FACT --
CHIEF JUSTICE: WAS THERE
ANYTHING THAT YOU DID TO DO
WITH THE PRACTICE OF LAW, AS
FAR AS KEEPING UP YOUR LEGAL
TRAINING? 
IN FLORIDA OR NEW MEXICO. 
CHIEF JUSTICE: IN FLORIDA. 
I HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING IN
FLORIDA. 
I HAVEN'T LIVED HERE SINCE
1994. 
CHIEF JUSTICE: I HAVE TO
STOP YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE OUT OF
TIME. 
THE COURT WILL TAKE THIS CASE
UNDER ADVISEMENT