On October 7, 2005, Northern District of Florida Federal Judge Robert Hinkle abstained from, and dismissed the case of FloridaBarWatch founder Frank Lawrence.  (click here to see the opinion)

This is an important First Amendment case for Florida licensing applicants and Judge Hinkle's decision will most assuredly be appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  In dismissing the case, Judge Hinkle found that the 1982 case of Middlesex v. Garden State Bar Ass'n required abstention.  On appeal, we intend to show that a lot has happened in the past 23 years in First Amendment law, as applied to the rules governing abstention.  We have excellent expectations for a reversal on appeal.

This lawsuit was filed because the members and staff of the Florida Board of Bar examiners do not respect the pronouncement that "Under the First Amendment, views and beliefs are immune from Bar Association inquisitions designed to lay a foundation for barring an applicant from the practice of law." Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, 401 U.S. 1, 7; 91 S. Ct. 702; 27 L. Ed. 2d 639 (1971).  (Click here to see the complaint)

It is never easy to challenge state licensing officials.  Recent case law proves that plaintiffs who challenge licensing authorities generally must take their cases to a federal circuit court of appeals to get a favorable decision. See, Dubuc v. Mich. Bd. of Law Examiners, 342 F.3d 610 (6th Cir. 2003); Centifanti v. Nix, 865 F.2d 1422 (3d Cir. 1989); Roe # 2 v. Ogden, 253 F.3d 1225 (10th Cir. 2001); Dean v. Byerley, 354 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 2004); Rittenhouse v. Delta Home Improvement (in Re Desilets), 291 F.3d 925 (6th Cir. 2002). 

Please keep checking back for more information on this case, litigation which has the potential to curb the abuse of power by state officials.