He Got Help for Mental Illness. Now He Says Florida Bar Examiners Are Using That Against Him
Law student Capt. Julius Hobbs got the green light from a federal judge to proceed with a suit against the Florida Board of Bar Examiners, which handles bar admissions.
July 05, 2018 at 03:35 PM
4 minute read
applied early for admission Quinn Emanuel Partner Suffers From Depression and He Wants Everyone to Know
Hobbs said he underwent psychotherapy for five months with a doctor who diagnosed him with mild alcohol-use disorder and adjustment disorder with depression. He has since thrived in law school, where he had a 3.63 grade point average, according to his complaint. He says he maintains contact with his doctor, and is fit and able to pursue a law career, despite its reputation as a stressful profession prone to triggering mental illness.
"I had 10 years in the Army," said Hobbs, whose complaint states he won the Bronze Star, Army Commendation Medal and Army Achievement Medal, among others, while on military duty. "I performed well in the Army for 10 years, which is another high-stress environment."
Hobbs filed suit in federal court against the board, its executive director Michele Gavagni in her official capacity, and the Florida Supreme Court, which creates the rules governing bar admission. He asserted claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.
James J. Dean, the Tallahassee attorney from Messer Caparello representing the board and Gavagni, did not respond to requests for comment. But in court pleadings, the defendants moved to dismiss on several jurisdictional grounds. They argued lack of standing,ripeness and mootness, failure to state a claim for relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and immunity under the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
"It is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that he satisfies the character and fitness requirements," Dean wrote in the motion to dismiss. "The Bar Admission Rules set forth, with specificity, the 'essential eligibility requirements' that must be satisfied."
As for questions No. 25 and 26, which ask about mental illness, the board said the high court "regularly admits applicants with a history of both mental disorders and treatment by mental health professionals, and encourages applicants to seek mental health treatment whennecessary." It said it required additional screening because "it is dangerous to rely on the patient for an objective assessment of the appropriateness of their substance use."
U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle in Tallahassee dismissed the claims against the Florida Supreme Court for lack of standing, but denied the motion to throw out the suit against the board and its executive director — leaving the remaining parties to prove their case.
"The board may believe that a patient's own treating professional may be unduly supportive of the patient, or even that a Veterans Administration professional may be unduly supportive of a veteran," Hinkle wrote. "But one might also believe that a professional who routinely accepts referrals from the board may be overly demanding of an applicant with a disability. One cannot know, based on the allegations of this complaint, whether the board violated the ADA. The complaint plausibly alleges that the scope of the evaluation the board demanded was not reasonably related to Mr. Hobbs's fitness to practice law."
Related stories Decorated Army Vet Sues Florida Supreme Court and Florida Board of Examiners for Violating Americans with Disabilities Act Ruff Day: Attorneys Rely on Pets at Law Firms to Bring Cheer to High-Stress Profession Read the ruling Read the motion to dismiss by the Florida Board of Bar Examiners
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllChicago Midsize Firm Will Combine With Miami Boutique To Form Antitrust Powerhouse
3 minute readAkerman Opens Charlotte Office With Focus on Renewable Energy, Data Center Practices
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Growing PFAS Morass: Why Insurance Should Cover These Products Liability Claims
- 2Dallas Jury Awards $98.65M in Botham Jean Killing by Dallas Officer
- 3In Talc Bankruptcy, Andy Birchfield Skipped His Deposition. Could He Face Sanctions?
- 4Pharmaceutical Patents: Benefits and Challenges
- 5Where Do Web-Tracking Class Actions Belong? 8th Circuit Weighs the Issue
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250