Case Title: The Florida Bar v. Swickle

Citation: 589 So. 2d 901

Docket Number: 75348

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 1991-11-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
589 So. 2d 901 (1991)
THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant,
v.
Harvey S. SWICKLE, Respondent.
No. 75348.

Supreme Court of Florida.
November 14, 1991.
*902 John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director and John T. Berry, Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, and Warren Jay Stamm, Bar Counsel, Miami, for complainant.
Nicholas R. Friedman, Friedman, Baur, Miller & Webner, P.A., Miami, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
This case is before us upon the complaint of The Florida Bar and the report and recommendation of the referee. We have jurisdiction under article V, section 15, Florida Constitution.
The Bar filed a complaint against Respondent Swickle alleging several ethical violations. The alleged violations arose from an investigation by the State Attorney's Office and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement into a suspected bribery and conspiracy involving Swickle and former Circuit Judge Howard Gross. After an evidentiary hearing on the Bar's complaint, the referee made the following findings of fact:
(Record citations and footnote omitted.)
Swickle was tried and acquitted on criminal charges arising from this incident.
The referee recommended that Swickle be found guilty of violating the following Rules Regulating The Florida Bar: rule 4-3.3(d) (in an ex parte proceeding a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer which will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse); *904 rule 4-4.1(a) (in the course of representing a client, a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person); rule 4-8.4(e) (a lawyer shall not state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official); and rule 4-8.4(a), (c), (d) (a lawyer shall not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct; engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; or engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice).[1] The referee further recommended that Swickle be disbarred.
Swickle alleges that due process errors occurred in the grievance committee proceedings. First, he argues that the notice of the grievance committee hearing was untimely and that the charges against him were vague. Swickle misperceives the nature of proceedings before the grievance committee. Grievance committee proceedings are principally investigatory. They are comparable to proceedings before a grand jury. They are nonadversarial. There is no right of confrontation or cross-examination. The attorney under investigation is not entitled to a bill of particulars because the committee itself is without particulars until it completes its investigation. The Fla. Bar v. Wagner, 175 So. 2d 33, 35 (Fla. 1965).
The respondent has only limited rights in this context. At a reasonable time before a finding of probable cause is made, the respondent shall be advised of the conduct under investigation and the rules that may have been violated. In addition, the respondent must be given all materials considered by the committee, as well as an opportunity to make a written statement explaining, refuting, or admitting the alleged misconduct. R.Reg.Fla.Bar. 3-7.4(g).
The notice to Swickle was fair and in full compliance with the applicable rule. Swickle received notice on May 26, 1989 of the hearing scheduled for June 8, 1989. The notice identified the rules allegedly violated. Swickle was aware of the conduct under investigation. Further, Swickle was represented by counsel at the grievance committee hearing and was given an opportunity to cross-examine Bar witnesses.
Swickle claims that Florida Department of Law Enforcement Agent Flint and others involved in the unsuccessful criminal litigation improperly prosecuted the Bar's case against him. He relies on State ex rel. The Florida Bar v. Murrell, 74 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 1954). In Murrell, insurance companies initiated and carried out an investigation of the professional conduct of an attorney who represented clients in negligence and compensation cases. This Court condemned the practice of allowing those with interests adverse to an attorney a prominent part in directing disciplinary proceedings against the attorney. Rather, investigations in disciplinary matters should be conducted by the Bar.
There is no suggestion here, as there was in Murrell, that improper motive prompted the investigation into the respondent's professional conduct. This disciplinary matter arose out of a criminal investigation into suspected illegal conduct. Moreover, Agent Flint did not prosecute the Bar's case against Swickle. He merely testified as a witness. Nothing prohibits the Bar from proving its case by using the same witnesses who testified in the criminal trial. The determination of Flint's credibility was within the province of the grievance committee and the referee.
Swickle also complains of the Bar's action in moving, without notice to him, to stay proceedings before the referee in the Bar's case against Gross. The motion to stay indicated that Gross and the Bar had negotiated a conditional guilty plea and consent judgment. The plea was to be withheld until after the conclusion of proceedings against Swickle. Swickle claims error in the Bar's refusal to provide him with the details of Gross's plea agreement.
*905 The cases against Gross and Swickle were separate disciplinary matters arising out of the same set of facts. The Bar was not required to give Swickle notice of the proceedings in the independent case against Gross. Nor was the Bar prohibited from entering into negotiations with Gross and postponing that case until resolution of Swickle's case. Swickle has not shown what relevance the Bar's plea agreement with Gross had in his case. Had the Bar called Gross as a witness at Swickle's evidentiary hearing, the plea agreement might have been relevant for impeachment purposes. However, Gross only testified in Swickle's behalf. There is no suggestion that Swickle would have wanted to use the plea agreement to impeach his own witness, even if he could properly do so. Swickle appears to claim that had the referee been aware of the discipline recommended by the Bar as part of the plea agreement with Gross, he would have recommended a lesser discipline in this case. The Bar's recommended discipline in the Gross case has no bearing on the appropriate discipline here. The cases involve different alleged rules violations, a different amount of proof, and different factors in mitigation and aggravation. Further, the ultimate determination of the appropriate discipline is the sole province of this Court.
Swickle argues that his acquittal of criminal charges should preclude disciplinary action against him. Under the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, the acquittal of an attorney in a criminal proceeding does not necessarily bar disciplinary proceedings. R.Reg.Fla.Bar. 3-4.4. Further, whether Swickle engaged in criminal misconduct is not at issue here. We are concerned with violations of ethical responsibilities imposed on Swickle as a member of the Bar of this state.
We reject Swickle's contention that disbarment is not warranted on the facts of this case. The referee found that Swickle misrepresented material facts to a judge and failed to disclose other material facts. In addition, the referee found that Swickle led Cassal to believe that he could bribe a judge to reduce Zirio's bond. The nature of Swickle's misconduct warrants disbarment. In particular, suggesting that one has the ability to bribe a judge strikes at the core of our legal system. Our system is designed to insure that equal justice prevails for all, whether rich or poor, powerful or powerless. The Fla. Bar v. McCain, 361 So. 2d 700, 707 (Fla. 1978). When people are led to believe that justice is dispensed on the basis of corrupt influences, the public cannot have confidence in the integrity or impartiality of the judiciary or the bar. The entire judicial process is undermined as a result. Id.
Accordingly, we adopt the referee's factual findings and accept the recommended discipline. Respondent Harvey Swickle is hereby disbarred effective December 16, 1991, thereby giving respondent thirty days to close out his practice. Respondent shall accept no new business after the date of this opinion. Judgment for costs in the amount of $3,497.55 is hereby entered against the respondent, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, BARKETT, GRIMES and HARDING, JJ., concur.
McDONALD and KOGAN, JJ., recused.
[1]  The referee found that there was not clear and convincing evidence to support a finding that Swickle bribed or attempted to bribe Judge Gross to lower Zirio's bond.