Attorney Matthew Dietz and law student Capt. Julius Hobbs. Courtesy photos.

A law student and U.S. Army veteran—who settled a lawsuit alleging the Florida Board of Bar Examiners discriminated against him for having previously sought help for an alcohol disorder—has claimed the board is trying to rehash the issue with an investigative hearing now that he's passed the bar.

Julius Hobbs, who sued while he was a second-year student, claimed he faced extra screening from the board because of a prior diagnosis of mild alcohol-use disorder and adjustment disorder. He was arrested for drunken driving in 2006 and 2012 but never convicted. After reaching out to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Hobbs received five months of psychotherapy.

The case against the examiners settled, and Hobbs passed the bar. But he claimed the board summoned him to an investigative hearing to explain alleged inconsistencies in his deposition testimony. The board noted Hobbs answered "no" to a new question on the application about whether he'd been treated for or had a recurrence of substance abuse, within the past five years, which could impair his ability to practice law.

Hobbs argued he has no issue that could impair his ability to practice and said the board gave up its right to revisit affidavits and depositions when it settled.

"This is a deliberate method for Mr. Hobbs to be forced to further humiliate himself and subject himself to embarrassing inquiry because he enforced his rights," according to the motion by Hobbs' counsel, Miami lawyer Matthew Dietz.

Both sides agreed not to sue over claims arising from or relating to the litigation, "including those of which they do not know or suspect to exist, whether through ignorance, oversight, error, negligence, or otherwise." That encompassed allegations of fraud, deception, concealment, misrepresentation or any other misconduct, according to the agreement. A redacted version of the settlement shows the board also agreed to pay $125,000 in attorney fees and costs to the plaintiff.

But the board of examiners claims it's treating Hobbs as it would any other applicant and argues the agreement doesn't stop it from conducting a background investigation into character, fitness and candor.

"Plaintiff and his counsel are stretching the mutual-release language in the settlement agreement beyond reason, beyond its plain language and meaning, and beyond the parties' agreement," its response said.

The board noted it hadn't asked Hobbs about medication, requested a physical exam, or charged him money. It argued it should be allowed to ask about alcohol use and whether his drinking habits have changed since the summary judgment hearing. At that hearing, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle had said of Hobbs, "I don't see any reason to think he can't be a very successful lawyer. But he drinks too much. And if he doesn't think he has a drinking problem, he's kidding himself."

The board's attorney Robert A. McNeely and its general counsel James Almon deferred comment to executive director Michele Gavagni, who labeled the motion as an attempt to relitigate the part of a summary judgment ruling that found the board could investigate alcohol use.

"We are an agency of the Supreme Court of Florida, and the Supreme Court has said candor is the most important aspect in character and fitness," Gavagni said. "We're charged to investigate the character and fitness of each applicant for admission to the Florida Bar."

The board also questioned why Hobbs' 2019 application referenced a 2010 child-custody case he hadn't mentioned in his 2016 application. Hobbs said he'd forgotten to include the case because it was resolved and he'd never missed any child-support payments.

Hobbs' lawyer, Dietz, said the board is welcome to ask about the custody case and his client's current alcohol use but can't revisit litigated issues.

"We're saying he can be asked about that," Dietz said. "We have no question, even if they believe that he still suffers from an alcohol use disorder. Send him to a doctor, get him evaluated. But the purpose of this is to penalize him for standing up to his rights."

Dietz said it's no surprise that there's disagreement over candor, given the parties' history.

"Of course, in any litigation you have adverse parties," Dietz said. "They're not going to agree on everything the other side's going to say, and you're not going to agree that the other side was truthful in what they say. That's why we have trials, and that's why we have facts in dispute."

It's unfair, the way Dietz sees it, to subject Hobbs to further cross-examination in a forum controlled by the defendant. Dietz said his client fears he won't be able to find a job, and has filed a motion for leave to file a reply.

Read more – Minds Over Matters: An Examination of Mental Health in the Legal Profession