Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: Destruction of disciplinary action records hinders attorney’s admission in other states, suit says, (May 3, 2016)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

The justices and clerk of the Supreme Court of Florida and the Florida Board of Bar Examiners have a monopoly over the practice of law within the state and had a duty to maintain the records of a disbarred attorney’s disciplinary proceedings until the expiration of the period of suspension, according to a complaint filed by the attorney in the federal district court in Fort Lauderdale, Florida (Ramos v. Tomasino, April 29, 2016).

Anthony E. Ramos is the founder and president of five start-up companies and was admitted to practice law in the State of Florida in April 1981. Following attorney disciplinary proceedings, Ramos was disbarred from the practice of law by the Supreme Court of Florida in December 1997 and was not permitted to apply for reinstatement in Florida for 20 years.

The complaint states that, in 2014, Ramos sought bar admission in the State of New York in order to further the interests of his five companies. Washington, D.C. has a reciprocal admissions process for attorneys admitted in New York, but both require the presentation of any records of any disciplinary proceeding against the applicant from any state or the District of Columbia. In September 2014, Ramos contacted the Office of the Clerk for the Supreme Court of Florida and was informed that all records regarding his disciplinary proceeding had been destroyed under the Court’s records retention schedules.

Ramos’ ability to go forward with his applications for bar admissions were wholly dependent on his ability to produce certified copies of the entire record of his disciplinary proceedings in Florida, Ramos claims. Due to his inability to produce those records, Ramos had to withdraw his application for fear of sanctions, penalties, or other punishment in New York. Ramos also had to cancel his planned reciprocal admission in the District of Columbia, the complaint alleges.

According to the complaint, the defendants have a monopoly over the practice of law and had a duty to actively supervise the record-keeping requirements of the Court. The Court’s rules on reinstatement require that an applicant, upon motion at the expiration of the term, produce "disciplinary judgments." Since the only remaining record of Ramos with respect to Florida was his admission record from April 1981, he was unable to certify his identity or status with the state.

The plaintiff asserts claims for monopolization under the Sherman Act. The action seeks injunctive relief, costs of suit, and any other just and proper relief.

The case is No. 9:16-cv-80681-BB.

Attorneys: Anthony E. Ramos, pro se.

Companies: The Florida Board of Bar Examiners

News: Antitrust FloridaNews