Doe v. Florida Bar, 630 F.3d 1336

Florida Bar offers voluntary board certification in multiple fields, including marital and family law, with a confidential peer review process and a five-year certificate term.
Carolyn Zisser was initially certified in 1985, recertified in 1990 and 1995, but denied recertification in 2000 due to adverse peer reviews.
Her internal Bar appeals led to various procedural delays and the Certification Plan Appeals Committee’s stay, ending with a new application in 2005.
In 2006 the Bar’s Marital and Family Law Certification Committee recommended denial based on peer review comments; the Board of Legal Specialization and Education affirmed in November 2006.
Zisser received a March 2007 hearing before the Board; the Board denied recertification and a remand motion.
Following internal Bar appeals, Zisser pursued a federal lawsuit asserting as-applied and facial challenges to the confidential peer review rules under the Due Process Clause; the district court dismissed/bard the claims under Rooker-Feldman and due process grounds, respectively, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Rooker-Feldman bar as-applied challenges?	Zisser contends Feldman-like distinction applies; Florida Supreme Court denial was not merits-based review.	Rooker-Feldman bars review of final state-court judgments; Florida Supreme Court denial functions like Feldman’s denial on merits.	Yes; as-applied challenges are barred.
Is there a cognizable property interest in certification?	Zisser argues certification constitutes a protected property interest under Roth/Perry.	No property interest; certification is discretionary and contingent on confidential peer review.	No; no cognizable property interest.
Is there a cognizable liberty interest in reputation from denial of certification?	Zisser asserts denial harms reputation and thus liberty interest.	Certification denial does not implicate a protected liberty interest since practice is not barred and stigma is minimal.	No; no protected liberty interest established.
Does the waiver and confidentiality of peer review defeat due process claims?	Confidential peer review and lack of notice undermine due process protections.	Waiver and confidentiality reflect the process and do not violate due process when no entitlement exists.	Affirmed; waiver/confidentiality do not create entitlement.

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) (establishes limited jurisdiction of federal courts to review state-court decisions)
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) (precludes federal review of final state-court adjudications)
Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (property interests require legitimate entitlement under state law)
Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972) (mutually explicit understandings create entitlement to benefits)
Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (1982) (entitlement to certain benefits grounded in state law)
Shahawy v. Harrison, 875 F.2d 1529 (11th Cir. 1989) (physician staff privileges as a property interest; distinguishes attorney certification)
Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232 (1968) (state cannot exclude from practice in violation of due process)
Willner v. Committee on Character and Fitness, 373 U.S. 96 (1963) (due process in professional licensing context)
Shaw v. Hospital Authority of Cobb County, 507 F.2d 625 (5th Cir. 1975) (occupational rights and due process in professional contexts)
Conn v. Gabbert, 526 U.S. 286 (1999) (liberty interests require tangible effects to be cognizable)
United States v. Frandsen, 212 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2000) (testing facial challenges to statutes in due process context)