Case Title: The Florida Bar v. Keith F. Roberts

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC94-170

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2001-04-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida
 
____________
No. SC94170
____________
THE FLORIDA BAR,
Complainant,
vs.
KEITH F. ROBERTS,
Respondent.
[April 12, 2001]
PER CURIAM.
We have for review a referee’s report regarding alleged ethical breaches by
Keith F. Roberts.  We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 15 of the
Florida Constitution.  We approve the referee’s report and his recommendation that
Roberts be suspended from the practice of law for ninety days.
The Florida Bar filed a complaint against Roberts based on his alleged failure
to comply with the Bar’s continuing legal education requirements (CLER). 
Apparently Roberts had taken the required courses but failed to report his hours to
-2-
the Bar.  Roberts received a letter from the Bar in December of 1997 informing him
of his delinquent status and advising him that pursuant to rule 1-3.4(a) of the Rules
Regulating The Florida Bar a delinquent member should not engage in the practice
of law.  Roberts received another letter from the Bar in January of 1998 advising
him that he had been suspended due to his CLER delinquency.  Roberts failed to
notify his clients of his suspended status and continued to practice law.  Roberts
did not submit his petition for reinstatement until July 13, 1998.  On July 14, 1998,
Roberts testified under oath at a grievance committee hearing and asserted that he
was an active member in good standing of The Florida Bar.  
After conducting a hearing, the referee, circuit court judge Mark I. Shames,
found Roberts guilty of violating the following Rules Regulating The Florida Bar: 
rule 6-10.4 (reporting requirements), rules 1-3.4 and 1-3.6 (shall not practice law
while under suspension as a delinquent member), and rule 4-8.4(c) (conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation–based on Robert’s
testimony before the grievance committee that he was an active member in good
standing of The Florida Bar).  The referee recommended that Roberts be
suspended from the practice of law for ninety days.  The Board of Governors of
The Florida Bar voted to file a petition for review of the referee’s report and to
seek a ninety-one-day suspension.  Roberts has cross-petitioned alleging that his
1 Roberts argues that the alleged misrepresentation was not set forth in the Bar’s
complaint.  We find no merit to this argument as our review of the complaint leads us
to conclude that Roberts was clearly put on notice of the Bar’s intent to charge him
with misrepresentation based on his testimony in front of the grievance committee.
-3-
statement that he was active and in good standing cannot be properly viewed as a
misrepresentation and that a ninety-one-day suspension is unwarranted.
Roberts does not challenge the referee’s findings of guilt regarding rule 6-
10.4 (reporting requirements), or rules 1-3.4 and 1-3.6 (shall not practice law while
under suspension as a delinquent member).  However, Roberts does challenge the
referee’s finding of guilt regarding rule 4-8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation).1  Roberts argues that his response to the
grievance committee represented an expression of a legal position and therefore
was not a misrepresentation.  In his final report, the referee made the following
findings regarding the misrepresentation charge:
   15.  The transcript of the proceedings before the
Grievance Committee on July 14, 1998, (Bar’s Exhibit 9),
establish that the Respondent asserted at that time, under
oath, that he was an active member in good standing of
The Florida Bar.  The Respondent clearly did not enjoy
such status at that time as far as the Bar was concerned. 
At the time, Respondent, arguably, may not have
considered himself suspended, but his sworn answer to
the Committee, especially in light of his acknowledged
concern about the issue of practicing while he was
suspended, was a clear misrepresentation.
-4-
Referee’s Final Report at 3.
A referee's findings of fact carry a presumption of correctness and should be
upheld unless they are clearly erroneous or there is no evidence in the record to
support them.  See Florida Bar v. Vannier, 498 So. 2d 896, 898 (Fla. 1986).  If a
referee's findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence, this Court is
precluded from reweighing the evidence and substituting its judgment for that of the
referee.  See Florida Bar v. MacMillan, 600 So. 2d 457, 459 (Fla. 1992).  A party
challenging the referee's findings carries the burden of demonstrating that there is
no evidence in the record to support those findings or that the record clearly
contradicts those conclusions.  See Florida Bar v. Spann, 682 So. 2d 1070, 1073
(Fla. 1996).  In the present case, the referee’s findings are supported by competent,
substantial evidence.  Roberts testified before the Grievance Committee that he was
an active member in good standing of The Florida Bar, when in fact Roberts was
aware at that time that he had been suspended due to his CLER delinquency.
In contrast with a review of the referee’s findings of fact, which should be
upheld if supported by competent, substantial evidence, this Court has a broader
scope of review regarding a referee’s recommended discipline because the Court
bears the ultimate responsibility of ordering the appropriate sanction.  See Florida
Bar v. Vining, 707 So. 2d 670, 673 (Fla. 1998).    However, a referee’s
-5-
recommendation will be followed if reasonably supported by existing case law. 
See id.  As explained below, we find support for the referee’s recommendation in
this case. 
Cumulative misconduct is a relevant factor when determining an appropriate
sanction.  Ordinarily, cumulative misconduct is dealt with more harshly than
isolated misconduct.  See Florida Bar v. Bern, 425 So. 2d 526, 528 (Fla. 1982). 
Moreover, “cumulative misconduct of a similar nature should warrant an even more
severe discipline than might dissimilar conduct.”  Id.   
In Florida Bar v. Roberts, 689 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 1997), this Court
suspended Roberts for ninety days and placed him on probation for three years for
negligently representing a client.   Roberts’ previous misconduct, however, is not
of a similar nature to the misconduct in the present case.   
The Bar cites to two cases which resemble the facts of the present case: 
Florida Bar v. Wasserman, 654 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1995), and Florida Bar v. Levkoff,
511 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 1987).  In both of these cases, the attorneys received
suspensions of less than ninety-one days.  In Wasserman, the attorney received a
sixty-day suspension for continuing to practice law after receiving notice that he
had been suspended for failing to pay outstanding disciplinary costs.  Wasserman
had previously been given two public reprimands and an admonishment.  In
-6-
Levkoff, the attorney agreed to a ninety-day suspension for practicing law for seven
months while under suspension for nonpayment of dues. 
The only case cited by the Bar involving similar facts and a suspension of
more than ninety days is Florida Bar v. Weil, 575 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 1991), where the
attorney was suspended for six months.  Yet the conduct in Weil was more
egregious than the present case.  In Weil, the attorney continued to practice law
even though he was suspended for nonpayment of dues.  In addition, he failed to
respond to the Bar’s request for admissions and failed to appear during the
disciplinary proceedings.  The referee in Weil, who recommended disbarment,
focused on Weil’s failure to appear at the disciplinary proceedings and
characterized Weil’s conduct as willful indifference to the disciplinary system.  In
contrast, Roberts has not demonstrated such willful indifference in the present
case.  Accordingly, we approve the referee's recommendation as to discipline.
Keith F. Roberts is hereby suspended from the practice of law for ninety
days.  The ninety-day suspension will be effective thirty days from the filing of this
opinion so that Roberts can close out his practice and protect the interests of
existing clients.  If Roberts notifies this Court in writing that he is no longer
practicing and does not need the thirty days to protect existing clients, this Court
will enter an order making the suspension effective immediately.  Roberts shall
-7-
accept no new business from the date this opinion if filed until the suspension is
complete.
Judgment is entered for The Florida Bar, 650 Apalachee Parkway,
Tallahassee, Florida, 32399-2300, for recovery of costs from Keith F. Roberts in
the amount of $1,247.36, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and
QUINCE, JJ., concur.
THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SUSPENSION.
Original Proceeding - The Florida Bar
John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director and John Anthony Boggs, Division
Director, Tallahassee, Florida; and Monica Ann Frost, Assistant Staff Counsel,
Tampa, Florida,
for Complainant
Keith F. Roberts, pro se, Tampa, Florida,
for Respondent