Case Title: The Florida Bar v. Siegel

Citation: 511 So. 2d 995

Docket Number: 68956, 68957

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 1987-09-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
511 So. 2d 995 (1987)
THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant,
v.
Martha SIEGEL, Respondent.
THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant,
v.
Laurence CANTER, Respondent.
Nos. 68956, 68957.

Supreme Court of Florida.
September 10, 1987.
*996 John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director and John T. Berry, Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, and Thomas E. DeBerg, Asst. Staff Counsel, Tampa, for complainant.
John E. Lund, Tampa, for respondents.
PER CURIAM.
These disciplinary proceedings are before us on complaint of the Florida Bar and the reports of the referee, which are contested by the Bar and by both respondents. We have jurisdiction, article V, section 15, Florida Constitution.
These complaints involve alleged misrepresentations made by the respondents, as law partners, in connection with the purchase of the building used primarily as their law offices. While the facts are not in dispute, the interpretation of those facts is heavily disputed: Because the referee's findings of fact are supported by competent and substantial evidence, we accept them as stated in the reports. Those reports are set out as follows (because they are identical, they have been consolidated into one document):
We accept in their entirety the referee's findings of fact and recommendations as to guilt. However, we must reject the referee's recommendations as to discipline. The respondents are guilty of a deliberate scheme to misrepresent facts in order to secure full financing of their purchase. We believe that this sort of fraudulent activity cannot be sufficiently disciplined by a two week suspension and public reprimand. We do believe, however, that the Bar's request for a ninety-one day suspension, thus requiring proof of rehabilitation, is not warranted.
Accordingly, we accept the referees findings of fact and recommendations of guilt. It is the judgment of this Court that the respondents, Martha Siegel and Laurence Canter, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of ninety days, commencing 30 days after the date of this opinion so that the respondents may close out their business, protect the interests of their clients, but accept no new business. These suspensions are to be served concurrently. Judgment for costs in the amount of $1,630.01 is hereby entered against respondent Seigel and judgment for costs in the amount of $1,679.51 is hereby entered against respondent Canter, for which sums let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
McDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.