While the Florida Supreme Court may “sympathize” with lawyers struggling with addictions and other personal hardships, if attorneys steal from their clients, they should expect to be booted out of the profession.
“There is never a valid reason for taking client funds held in trust or for completely abandoning clients,” the court said in a Jan. 10 order disbarring an Ocala attorney. “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.”
The Ocala lawyer admitted abusing painkillers and having a drinking problem, compounded by the death of her mother and her own diagnosis of what she believed was a fatal form of melanoma.
In rejecting a referee’s recommendation that she be suspended for three years, the court said when a lawyer intentionally misappropriates trust funds, disbarment is the presumptively appropriate sanction under both the Florida Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions and existing case law.
“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,” the court stated. “We have a responsibility to the citizens of this state.”
The court found the lawyer neglected numerous clients by failing to diligently pursue their cases; failing to adequately communicate with them; failing to adequately account to them for trust funds when received; misrepresenting the status of clients’ cases; failing to return client files when she abandoned her practice; and failing to utilize record-keeping and accounting procedures required by Bar rules.
“Respondent’s poor record keeping and maintenance of files, many of which are missing, made it impossible to determine the exact total of client funds converted,” said the court, noting Bar auditors determined that the total owed clients was no less than $31,416.41 and no more than $51,291.41.
The referee recommended the lawyer be found guilty of 23 rule violations, but said mitigating factors should be taken into account. Those include an absence of prior disciplinary record; absence of dishonest or selfish motive; personal or emotional problems that contributed to substance addictions; inexperience; physical or mental impairment; interim rehabilitation; and remorse.
The referee recommended a three-year suspension and thereafter indefinite suspension until the lawyer demonstrated rehabilitation with respect to her substance addictions, and until she has established that she has made all her former clients whole.
The Bar petitioned for review of the referee’s recommended discipline, challenging the referee’s findings as to mitigation, arguing that disbarment was the appropriate sanction. The court agreed.
“We find that the mitigation remaining in this case does not outweigh the seriousness of the offenses; disbarment is the appropriate sanction,” the court said.
Justice Harry Lee Anstead wrote a separate opinion partially concurring and partially dissenting, in which Justice Raoul Cantero concurred. Anstead disagreed with the disbarment, noting while the majority justified the disbarment by finding the lawyer acted knowingly in converting client funds, the referee had made a factual finding that the conversion was unintentional. Anstead said he would have upheld the three-year suspension.
— Courtesy Florida Bar News