Case Title: The Florida Bar v. Colclough

Citation: 561 So. 2d 1147

Docket Number: 73404

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 1990-06-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
561 So. 2d 1147 (1990)
THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant,
v.
Thomas P. COLCLOUGH, Respondent.
No. 73404.

Supreme Court of Florida.
June 7, 1990.
*1148 John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, and John T. Berry, Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, and Richard A. Greenberg, Asst. Staff Counsel, Tampa, for complainant.
Alan C. Sundberg of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A., Tallahassee, and Glenn Woodworth and Joseph F. McDermott, St. Petersburg, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
This proceeding is before the Court upon the complaint of The Florida Bar and the referee's report. The referee found respondent guilty as charged and recommended the imposition of a twelve-month suspension. We have jurisdiction.[1]
In essence, the referee found that respondent made misrepresentations in a lawsuit to the court and to opposing counsel as reflected in the following facts:
The referee recommended that respondent be found guilty of having violated the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility.[2] Respondent contests the factual findings.
A referee's finding of fact will be upheld unless it is clearly erroneous or lacking in evidentiary support. The Fla. *1150 Bar v. McKenzie, 442 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 1983); The Fla. Bar v. Hirsch, 359 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1978); The Fla. Bar v. Wagner, 212 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 1968); Rules Regulating Fla.Bar 3-7.6 ("the burden shall be upon the party seeking review to demonstrate that a report of a referee sought to be reviewed is erroneous, unlawful, or unjustified"). A referee's findings of fact are presumed to be correct. The Fla. Bar v. Stalnaker, 485 So. 2d 815, 816 (Fla. 1986); Rules Regulating Fla.Bar 3-7.5(k)(1), (l) (referee's findings of fact "shall enjoy the same presumption of correctness as the judgment of the trier of fact in a civil proceeding").
We conclude that the findings of the referee are supported by competent substantial evidence. Accordingly, we approve the referee's findings of guilt.
With respect to discipline, the gravity of respondent's conduct cannot be disputed. However, he has not been the subject of prior disciplinary action, and the record contains numerous letters and affidavits from practitioners which confirm that he has never before given cause to question his credibility or honesty. Under the circumstances, we believe that a six-month suspension gives appropriate weight to the referee's recommendation while at the same time imposing discipline which is more in line with that which has been imposed in cases involving somewhat comparable conduct. See The Fla. Bar v. Fischer, 549 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 1989); The Fla. Bar v. Anderson, 538 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 1989); The Fla. Bar v. Milin, 517 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1987); The Fla. Bar v. Oxner, 431 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1983).
We hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law for six months and thereafter until he shall prove rehabilitation. Inasmuch as respondent ceased practicing law on February 19, 1990, pursuant to our earlier order, this suspension shall be effective nunc pro tunc as of that date. Respondent shall pay costs to The Florida Bar in the amount of $2,079.63. Judgment in that amount is hereby entered against respondent, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
EHRLICH, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in which BARKETT, J., concurs.
McDONALD, J., dissents.
EHRLICH, Chief Justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority's approval of the referee's findings of guilt. I dissent, however, as to the discipline imposed.
As noted by the majority, "the referee found that respondent made misrepresentations in a lawsuit to the court and to opposing counsel." Maj. op. at 1148. A I have previously stated, "our profession can operate properly only if its individual members conform to the highest standard of integrity in all dealings within the legal system." The Florida Bar v. Lancaster, 448 So. 2d 1019, 1024 (Fla. 1984) (Ehrlich, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). The conduct of which Colclough has been found guilty undermines the very foundation of our profession. Members of the bench and bar as well as the public have a right to expect that a lawyer's representations are truthful and that he can be trusted. I feel that the discipline recommended by the referee, a suspension of twelve months, is appropriate in light of the seriousness of the misconduct at issue.
BARKETT, J., concurs.
[1]  Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.
[2]  Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(5) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice); Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(6) (conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law).