Florida Supreme Court disbars rather than suspends lawyer for having what "was in essence a partnership" with nonlawyer for immigration practice  [Added 6/30/08]

    Nonlawyer was the subject of a Florida Bar unlicensed practice of law ("UPL") investigation in 1998.  She was working on immigration matters.  By order of the Florida Supreme Court Nonlawyer was permanently enjoyed from UPL in Florida.  She sold her business to others, who renamed the business Millennia Consulting Services.  Nonlawyer continued to serve as an employee/manager for the business.

    Lawyer became involved with Millennia, establishing an office outside the Millennia suite in Aventura for work on labor and immigration matters.  Prior to that, Lawyer had operated exclusively out of his Hollywood office.  Lawyer, however, did not show his Hollywood office on his Aventura office letterhead.  Lawyer "entered into a partnership or business relationship with [Nonlawyer], through which he provided legal services to clients of Millennia through his law office at the Aventura address."  Lawyer "allowed [Nonlawyer] to be in control of Millennia's legal services and his law office's day-to-day operations at the Aventura location."  Eventually the business relationship between Lawyer and Nonlawyer soured, with Lawyer terminating the relationship and a new lawyer being found for affected clients.  Allegedly eight clients were adversely affected by Lawyer's misconduct in their cases.

    The Florida Bar charged Lawyer with ethical violations, and the referee who tried the case recommended that Lawyer be found guilty of violating rules that included Florida Rules of Professional Conduct 4-1.1 (competence), 4-1.3 (diligence), 4-1.4 (communication), and 4-5.4(c) (partnership with nonlawyer that includes the practice of law).  The referee recommended that Lawyer be suspended for 3 years.

    The Bar sought Supreme Court review of the recommended discipline.  The Court ordered Lawyer disbarred.

    Lawyer challenged the finding that he violated Rule 4-5.4(c).  The Court agreed with the referee.  "Due to the sharing of at least one employee, space, and fees, the referee appropriately found, based on competent, substantial evidence, that [Lawyer]'s law office and Millennia blended together into one operation that was in essence a partnership."

    Regarding discipline, the Court concluded:  "In addition to committing misconduct similar to that in [Florida Bar v.] Elster [770 So.2d 1184 (Fla. 2000)] and [Florida Bar v.] Abrams [919 So.2d 425 (Fla. 2006)], [Lawyer] affected more clients than in either of those cases, attempted to mislead the Bar during its investigation, assisted in the unlicensed practice of law, and formed an improper partnership with a nonlawyer whom he previously represented.  Thus, notwithstanding the referee’s erroneous determination that [Lawyer] was responsible for a client’s threatened deportation, the record supports a harsher sanction than in Elster and Abrams — disbarment.  See Fla. Stds. Imposing Law. Sancs. 7.1."  Florida Bar v. Glueck, 985 So.2d 1052 (Fla. 2008).

In "disciplinary case of first impression," Florida Supreme Court rejects recommended discipline and suspends lawyer for misconduct related to adoption  [Added 6/14/2008]

    Lawyer was a director and legal counsel for an adoption agency that was retained by prospective adoptive parents.  Lawyer began representing the adoptive parents.  Ultimately Lawyer filed adoption proceedings with the circuit court.  Problems developed with the adoption, including efforts by the maternal grandparents to become involved.  "Subsequent to the adoption, the grandparents and the birth mother began litigation seeking the return of the child.  The parties reached a settlement, agreeing to an open adoption which allowed the grandparents and the birth mother visitation rights with the child.  The adoptive parents initiated a malpractice action against [Lawyer], which was also settled.  The adoptive parents paid $15,000 for the adoption, of which $1,611.16 was used for out-of-pocket expenses.  [Lawyer] and her insurance carrier returned the entire fee."

    The Florida Bar charged Lawyer with misconduct relating to Lawyer's involvement in the adoption.  Lawyer was accused of making material misrepresentations to the court in connection with the adoption proceedings, including during an ex parte hearing.  Among the allegations were that the petition for termination of parental rights "falsely asserted that both the biological mother and the biological father had surrendered their parental rights."

    The referee found that Lawyer's actions "were violations of Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 4-1.1 (competence); rule 4-3.3(a)(1) (candor toward the tribunal – false statements); and rule 4-3.3(d) (candor toward the tribunal – ex parte proceedings).  The referee found substantial mitigation, including that Lawyer "was not trying to be dishonest."  Regarding the appropriate discipline, the referee recommended that Lawyer be publicly reprimanded, be placed on 2 years' probation, and be required to forfeit fees in the amount of more than $8,000 to the Florida Bar Foundation.  Both the Bar and Lawyer sought review in the Florida Supreme Court:  the Bar requested a 1-year suspension instead of a reprimand, and Lawyer challenged the fee forfeiture requirement and the order that she pay the Bar's costs.

    The Florida Supreme Court agreed with the referee's findings as to guilt.  The Court, however, rejected both the referee's recommended discipline and the Bar's requested 1-year suspension as too lenient.  The Court stated that "this is a disciplinary case of first impression.  The Court has not previously faced the need to discipline a lawyer for such serious misconduct in the sensitive context of an adoption proceeding."  The Court rejected the finding that Lawyer was not trying to be dishonest "because it is not supported by competent, substantial evidence."  The Court concluded that, "[d]ue to severity of [Lawyer]’s misconduct and the vulnerabilities of the parties to the adoption," a 3-year suspension should be imposed.

    The Court, however, agreed with Lawyer that fee forfeiture was not appropriate.  "[T]he clear language of Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 3-5.1(h) only permits disgorgement to the Client Security Fund.  The Florida Bar Foundation is not mentioned in the rule.  In addition, rule 3-5.1(h) and disgorgement do not apply to this case.  Although [Lawyer] provided inadequate service to her clients, the $8,388.84 was not a prohibited fee, an illegal fee, or an excessive fee as required by rule 3-5.1(h).  See Fla. Bar v. St. Louis, 967 So.2d 108, 123-24 (Fla. 2007).  The civil malpractice action instigated by the adoptive parents was the appropriate remedy in this situation, not disgorgement.  Thus, there is no basis under rule 3-5.1(h) to require [Lawyer] to disgorge $8,388.84, and the referee’s recommendation of disgorgement seems to be in the nature of a fine.  Fines are not permitted in disciplinary cases.  Fla. Bar v. Frederick, 756 So.2d 79 (Fla. 2000)."

    The Court also stated:  "Lawyers who undertake representation in the vital areas of adoption, dependency, and delinquency and in other family law cases serve interests which have unexcelled importance in the law.  We expressly advise lawyers that we applaud and appreciate their service in this representation but that the service must be performed in compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct.  If it is not, we will deal harshly with the violations."  Florida Bar v. Dove, 985 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 2008).

Lawyer who is subject of disciplinary proceedings barred from further pro se filings in case by Florida Supreme Court  [Added 3/21/08]

    Lawyer is the subject of disciplinary proceedings filed by the Florida Bar in the Florida Supreme Court.  Lawyer is representing himself.  Lawyer made a number of filings directly with the Court, including "inappropriate and pornographic materials."  The Court issued an order to show cause why Lawyer should not be sanctioned.  The Court thereafter sanctioned Lawyer, instructing the Clerk of the Court "to reject for filing any future petitions, pleadings, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by [Lawyer], unless signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar other than himself."

    The Court described one of Lawyer's filings:  "One of [Lawyer]'s recent filings contains what [Lawyer] refers to as a 'children’s picture book for adults' that rehashes his previous arguments in illustrated form which he states was necessary due to 'the Court’s inability to comprehend' his arguments.  Between the text of the motion, [Lawyer] pasted images depicting swastikas, kangaroos in court, a reproduced dollar bill, cartoon squirrels, Paul Simon, Paul Newman, Ray Charles, a handprint with the word 'SLAP!' written under it, Bar Governor Benedict P. Kuehne, a baby, Ed Bradley, Jack Nicholson, Justice Clarence Thomas, Julius Caesar, monkeys, and a house of cards, and the motion concludes with a photograph of the cover of [Lawyer]'s book, Out of Harm's Way."  Florida Bar v. Thompson, 979 So.2d 917 (Fla. 2008).

Finding additional conflict of interest violation, Florida Supreme Court rejects recommended discipline and suspends lawyer  [Added 1/24/08]

    Lawyer was charged by the Florida Bar with ethical violations arising from her representation of 2 individuals in a criminal case.  Spillman and Parks were together in a car that was stopped by the police.  Parks was driving.  He was charged with speeding and driving with a suspended license.  A gun was found under the tray in the car's center console, and Spillman was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.  Spillman and Parks visited Lawyer's office together and signed retainer agreements.  Spillman paid part of his fee at that time and agreed to make payments on the balance.  Lawyer then entered a notice of appearance for Parks, but arranged for another attorney to file a notice of appearance on Spillman's behalf.  Yet, Lawyer "actively represented Spillman, but failed to diligently represent him or to adequately communicate with him.  Further, [Lawyer] failed to clearly communicate to the trial court and Spillman whether she represented Parks and Spillman or just Parks.  Her actions toward Spillman were more often those of someone who did represent him rather than someone who did not.  She accepted money from Spillman, appeared in court for him, and filed official pleadings suggesting she represented him.  She never personally told Spillman that another lawyer was representing him."  (Parks also was a convicted felon, but apparently Lawyer did not know this.)

    The referee found Lawyer guilty of violating Florida Rules of Professional Conduct 4-1.3 (diligent representation), 4-1.4(a) (communication with client), and 4-8.4(c) (conduct involving misrepresentation).  The Bar also charged Lawyer with a prohibited conflict of interest (Rule 4-1.7), but the referee concluded that the Bar did not prove the conflict allegation by clear and convincing evidence.  The referee recommended that Lawyer be reprimanded.  Both the Bar and Lawyer sought review in the Florida Supreme Court.  The Bar challenged the findings on the conflict allegation and the recommended discipline.  Lawyer challenged the guilty findings on the other rule violations.

    The Supreme Court approved without much discussion the findings regarding violations of Rule 4-1.3 and Rule 4-1.4(a).  Although Lawyer argued that her misrepresentation had not been intentional, the Court disagreed.  "While it is true that in order to prove a violation of rule 4-8.4(c), the Bar must show that the misrepresentation was intentional, the intent element is satisfied by a showing that the misleading conduct was deliberate or knowing.  Fla. Bar v. Brown, 905 So.2d 76, 81 (Fla. 2005)."  Lawyer's acts were "deliberate and knowing," and thus constituted misrepresentation for purposes of Rule 4-8.4(c).

    Turning to the conflict charge, the Court rejected the referee's not guilty finding.  "The factual circumstances leading up to Spillman’s being charged with possession of firearm by a convicted felon establish that Spillman and Parks had interests that were directly adverse.  Parks and Spillman were both in the car when it was stopped.  The firearm was concealed in the center console between them.  An obvious potential defense to the charge against Spillman would have been a showing that the firearm was in Parks’ possession, not Spillman’s."

    The Court continued:  "Parks also had an interest in not being in possession of the firearm.  Parks was also a convicted felon.  Even if he had not been, he would have had an interest in not having the possession of the firearm attributed to him."  The interests of the 2 clients were "directly adverse and [Lawyer]'s representation of both of them, to any extent whatsoever, including covering a hearing for a colleague, was improper."  The Court  further noted that the adverse interests "also made it impossible for [Lawyer] to ethically represent both Spillman and Parks because her professional judgment with regard to one or both of them was materially limited by the dual representation. She could not cast doubt on Spillman’s possession of the firearm without casting suspicion on Parks, and vice versa."

    The Court rejected the recommended discipline of a reprimand and instead suspended Lawyer for 90 days.  Florida Bar v. Brown, 978 So.2d 107 (Fla. 2008).

Florida Supreme Court rejects referee's findings of mitigating factors and imposes disbarment rather than recommended suspension  [Added 1/14/08]

    The Florida Bar charged Lawyer with numerous ethical violations, including mishandling client trust funds and engaging in dishonest conduct.  Lawyer admitted the allegations, but also introduced evidence that she had a drinking problem, abused painkillers, and suffered serious personal trauma during the time in question.  The referee before whom the case was tried recommended that Lawyer be found guilty of the charges.  The referee found several aggravating and mitigating factors.  The referee recommended a 3-year suspension with readmission thereafter upon a showing of rehabilitation, to be followed by a probationary period.

    The Bar petitioned for Supreme Court review, challenging the referee's findings as to mitigation and aggravation and seeking disbarment rather than a suspension.  The Court agreed with some of the Bar's contentions and ordered Lawyer disbarred.  Specifically, the Court rejected the referee's findings of 2 mitigating factors:  inexperience in the practice of law; and lack of a dishonest or selfish motive.

    Concerning inexperience, the Bar argued that Lawyer "did not merely make errors resulting from lack of experience."  The Bar contended that Lawyer "stole money and abandoned her clients, and such misconduct cannot be mitigated by lack of experience."  The Court agreed, noting that Lawyer had experience at both a private firm and the Public Defender's office.  "[I]t is clear that the referee’s finding with regard to lack of experience is not supported by the record and lack of experience did not contribute to [Lawyer]’s commission of the rule violations."

    As to lack of dishonest or selfish motive, the Court pointed out that Lawyer admitted violating Rule 4-8.4(c), Florida Rules of Professional Conduct (prohibiting lawyers from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).  This admission "cannot be reconciled with the referee's finding that [Lawyer] lacked a dishonest or selfish motive.  See Fla. Bar v. Brownstein, 953 So.2d 502 (Fla. 2007).  [Lawyer] intentionally misappropriated client money and, therefore, engaged in dishonest conduct."

    Regarding the appropriate level of discipline, the Court observed that under the Florida Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions as well as existing caselaw, disbarment is the "presumptively appropriate sanction" for a lawyer who intentionally misappropriates trust funds.  The mitigating factors in this case did not overcome the presumption of disbarment.  "While we sympathize with the problems respondent had in her personal life, and understand the problems associated with substance abuse and what it can do to a person’s life, we cannot condone respondent’s behavior.  We have a responsibility to the citizens of this state.  There is never a valid reason for taking client funds held in trust or for completely abandoning clients.  Lawyers are required to have high ethical standards because members of the public are asked to trust lawyers in their greatest hours of need.  Without such standards, the entire legal profession would be in jeopardy as public trust would dissipate."  Florida Bar v. Valentine-Miller, 974 So.2d 333 (Fla. 2008).

In disciplinary case, Florida Supreme Court approves referee's rejection of drug addiction as "physical or mental disability" mitigating factor.  [Added 12/15/07]  --  The Florida Bar v. Bloom, 972So.2d 172 (Fla. 2007).

Florida Bar prosecutors absolutely immune from civil liability for actions taken in connection with their official duties, even if actions taken intentionally and maliciously.  [Added 11/24/07]  --  Spano v. Hoffman, 968 So.2d 674 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

Lawyer suspended for 91 days for failing to disclose to opposing counsel settlement agreement procured by lawyer's client and purportedly signed by opposing counsel's client.  [Added 7/13/07]  --  Florida Bar v. Nicnick, 963 So.2d 219 (Fla. 2007).

For first time, Florida Supreme Court readmits on conditional basis lawyer who resigned for disciplinary reasons.  [Added 6/17/07]  --  Florida Board of Bar Examiners re: Mark Stephen Barnett, 959 So.2d 234 (Fla. 2007).

"As a matter of policy" Florida Supreme Court orders respondent lawyer to pay Bar's costs of seeking review of referee's recommended discipline, even though respondent did not seek review.  [Added 6/15/07]  --  Florida Bar v. Martinez-Genova, 959 So.2d 241 (Fla. 2007) (opinion on rehearing).

Florida Supreme Court rejects referee's recommendation and imposes reprimand rather than diversion in case involving lawyer's "sharp practice."  [Added 6/9/07]  --  Florida Bar v. Cocalis, 959 So.2d 163 (Fla. 2007).

Florida Supreme Court discusses use of "failure to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct" as aggravating factor in disciplinary cases.  [Added 5/21/07]  --  Florida Bar v. Germain, 957 So.2d 613 (Fla. 2007).

Florida Supreme Court holds that Rule 4-5.6(b) is constitutional, and imposes fee forfeiture and stiff discipline on 2 lawyers who entered undisclosed engagement agreement with clients' adversary.  [Added 5/8/07]  --  Florida Bar v. Rodriguez, 959 So.2d 150 (Fla. 2007); Florida Bar v. St. Louis, 967 So.2d 108 (Fla. 2007).

Rejecting referee's recommendation, Florida Supreme Court suspends rather than disbars lawyer convicted of felonies.  [Added 4/25/07]  --  Florida Bar v. Del Pino, 955 So.2d 556 (Fla. 2007).

Supreme Court suspends lawyer for 90 days, rather than 2 years as recommended by referee, for violating competence and conflict rules.  [Added 4/17/07]  --  Florida Bar v. Maurice, 955 So.2d 535 (Fla. 2007).

Florida Supreme Court disbars lawyer charged with misappropriating client funds, despite mental health mitigation and referee's recommendation of 3-year suspension.  [Added 4/4/07]  --  Florida Bar v. Brownstein, 953 So.2d 502 (Fla. 2007).

Florida Supreme Court disbars lawyer who practiced while suspended.  [Added 2/26/07]  --  The Florida Bar v. Walkden, 950 So.2d 407 (Fla. 2007).

Florida Supreme Court refuses to order lawyer to pay restitution to third party in disciplinary case.  [Added 12/15/06]  --  Florida Bar v. Walton, 952 So.2d 510 (Fla. 2006).

Lawyer's trial conduct leading to trial court's imposition of sanctions results in 91-day suspension by Supreme Court (rather than 10-day recommended suspension).  [Added 11/2/06]  --  The Florida Bar v. Tobkin, 944 So.2d 219 (Fla. 2006).

Lawyer who failed to properly supervise employee had requisite "intent" and was found guilty of violating Rule 4-8.4(c) and suspended for 3 years.  [Added 10/6/06]  --  The Florida Bar v. Riggs, 944 So.2d 167 (Fla. 2006).

Lawyer's "mere attendance at a courtroom proceeding," without more, not sufficient to support conclusion that lawyer practiced law while suspended.  [Added 10/23/06]  --  The Florida Bar v. D'Ambrosio, 944 So.2d 977 (Fla. 2006).

Suspended lawyer who failed to provide evidence of alcohol and drug rehabilitation denied reinstatement.  [Added 10/20/06]  --  The Florida Bar re: Alan R. Hochman, 944 So.2d 198 (Fla. 2006).

Fourth DCA upholds perjury conviction of lawyer's former employee who filed bar grievance containing untrue statement.  [Added 10/18/06]  --  Rutherford v. State, 939 So.2d 328 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).

Fee refunds may be ordered only under limited circumstances in disciplinary cases, per Florida Supreme Court.  [Added 6/29/06]  --  The Florida Bar v. Feige, 937 So.2d 605 (Fla. 2006).

Lawyer suspended for 91 days for "inappropriate courtroom behavior."  [Added 6/26/06]  --  The Florida Bar v. Morgan, 938 So.2d 496 (Fla 2006).

Florida Supreme Court warns that it is moving toward stronger sanctions for lawyer misconduct.  [Added 6/8/06]  --  The Florida Bar v. Broome, 932 So.2d 1036 (Fla. 2006).

Bar's unexplained delay in prosecuting disciplinary case is factor in Court's decision to impose 2-year, rather than 3-year, suspension.  [Added 2/24/06]  --  The Florida Bar v. Wolf, 930 So.2d 574 (Fla. 2006).

Florida denies reinstatement to suspended lawyer who has not been readmitted to bar of his home state.  [Added 2/20/06]  --  The Florida Bar re: Untracht, 923 So.2d 457 (Fla. 2006).

"Managing attorney" for nonlawyer's immigration business suspended for one year for assisting UPL and fee-splitting with nonlawyer.  [Added 1/18/06]  --  The Florida Bar v. Abrams, 919 So.2d 425 (Fla. 2006).

90-day suspension for lawyer who acted as counsel of record for disbarred lawyer and thus allowed him to provide legal services for his clients and commit UPL.  [Added 11/28/05]  --  The Florida Bar v. Stein, 916 So.2d 774 (Fla. 2005).

Lawyer who practiced law while suspended sanctioned; no willful contempt due to mental health mitigation.  [Added 10/18/05]  --  The Florida Bar v. Shoureas, 913 So.2d 554 (Fla. 2005).

Florida Bar grievance committee meetings confidential; respondents may be barred from attending.  [Added 10/18/05]  --  The Florida Bar v. Committe, 916 So.2d 741 (Fla. 2005).

Florida Supreme Court declines to revoke lawyer's board certification as disciplinary sanction.  [Added 9/21/05]  --  The Florida Bar v. Kavanaugh, 915 So.2d 89 (Fla. 2005).

Misconduct dealing with his law firm nets lawyer 90-day suspension.  [Added 7/12/05]  --  The Florida Bar v. Shankman, 908 So.2d 379 (Fla. 2005).

Lawyer's moonlighting and subsequent denial results in loss of job and 30 day suspension from practice.  [Added 6/2/05]  --  The Florida Bar v. Kossow, 912 So.2d 544 (Fla. 2005).

ADA does not preclude Supreme Court from disbarring lawyer with serious drug and alcohol addiction.  [Added 3/3/05]  --  The Florida Bar v. Gross, 896 So.2d 742 (Fla. 2005).

Lawyer's cessation of conduct that resulted in emergency suspension not valid basis for lifting suspension.  [Added 2/4/05]  --  The Florida Bar v. Guerra, 896 So.2d 705 (Fla. 2005).

3-year suspension, not disbarment, appropriate for cases of client neglect short of "abandonment."  [Added 8/23/04]  --  The Florida Bar v. Shoureas, 892 So.2d 1002 (Fla. 2004).

Supreme Court rules that writing single $100 worthless check does not violate disciplinary rules, and declines to order restitution absent improper fees or misappropriation.  [Added 1/22/04]  --  The Florida Bar v. Smith, 866 So.2d 41 (Fla. 2004).