Case Title: The Florida Bar v. Daniel Edgar Tropp

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC11-45

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2013-03-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 2013 
 
                                                          CASE NO(S).:  SC11-45 
                                                          Lower Tribunal No(s).:  2010-70,301(11F) 
 
THE FLORIDA BAR 
vs. 
 
DANIEL EDGAR TROPP 
Complainant(s) 
 
Respondent(s) 
 
The Court approves the report of the referee and hereby reprimands 
respondent.  
 
Further, respondent is placed on probation for three years under the terms 
and conditions set forth in the report.  Respondent shall comply with all other 
terms and conditions in the report. 
 
Judgment is entered for The Florida Bar, 651 East Jefferson Street, 
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300, for recovery of costs from Daniel Edgar Tropp in 
the amount of $1,889.65, for which sum let execution issue. 
 
Not final until time expires to file motion for rehearing, and if filed, 
determined. 
 
POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, and PERRY, JJ., concur. 
LABARGA, J., dissents with an opinion, in which CANADY, J., concurs. 
 
 
LABARGA, J., dissenting. 
 
 
Because I conclude that the reprimand and probation imposed on respondent 
constitute an insufficient sanction in light of his egregious behavior and the rules  
Case No. SC11-45 
Page 2 
 
violated in this case, I respectfully dissent.  The Amended Report of Referee in this 
case found as fact that respondent Tropp, an attorney acting as co-counsel in the  
post-dissolution portion of his own divorce case, personally filed a fourth motion 
to disqualify the trial judge.  The referee found that in the motion, respondent 
alleged that the judge had an improper, essentially ex parte, discussion outside of 
respondent’s presence with Tropp’s ex-wife’s attorney concerning the amount of 
respondent’s support payments.   
The referee further found, however, that the motion failed to state that 
respondent’s co-counsel was present during the discussion in question, and that the 
omission was a misrepresentation designed to mislead the court because 
respondent knew that his co-counsel was present.  These findings by the referee are 
supported by competent, substantial evidence.  See Fla. Bar v. Frederick, 756 So. 
2d 79, 86 (Fla. 2000) (reiterating that if a referee’s findings of fact are supported 
by competent, substantial evidence in the record, the Court will not reweigh the 
evidence and substitute its judgment for that of the referee).   
The fourth motion to disqualify was granted and the trial judge did recuse 
himself, but referred this matter to The Florida Bar.  After a disciplinary hearing, 
the referee recommended that Tropp be found guilty of violating the following 
Rules Regulating the Florida Bar: Rules of Professional Conduct 4-3.1 
(meritorious claims and contentions); 4-3.3(a) (candor toward the tribunal);  
4-8.2(a) (impugning qualifications and integrity of judges or other officers); 
Case No. SC11-45 
Page 3 
 
4-8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); and  
4-8.4(d) (conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the 
administration of justice). 
Regardless of whether a lawyer, even one acting as co-counsel in his own 
case, is under the stress of a dissolution proceeding or any other litigation, the 
lawyer should never misrepresent a material fact, either by omission or 
commission, to the court.  The fact that respondent’s allegation lacked candor and 
was designed to mislead the court—and, further, wrongfully and unfairly 
impugned the integrity, objectivity, and fairness of the trial judge—makes the 
violations committed in this case even more egregious.  While a public reprimand 
and probation are not insignificant sanctions, rehabilitative sanctions have been 
imposed for conduct similar to that in the instant case.  See, e.g., Fla. Bar v. 
Gwynn, 94 So. 3d 425, 433 (Fla. 2012) (imposing a ninety-one day suspension for 
violating, in pertinent part, rules regarding meritorious claims and contentions; 
candor toward the tribunal; conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation; and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice); see 
also Fla. Bar v. Abramson, 3 So. 3d 964, 967-69 (Fla. 2009) (imposing a ninety-
one day suspension for violation of rule regarding making statements known to be 
false or with reckless disregard for the truth, rule prohibiting conduct prejudicial to 
the administration of justice, and several other rules). 
 
Case No. SC11-45 
Page 4 
 
In addition to precedent supporting a suspension in this case, the Florida 
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions also indicate that a suspension in this  
case would be appropriate.  Standard 6.12 provides that “[s]uspension is 
appropriate when a lawyer knows that false statements or documents are being 
submitted to the court or that material information is improperly being withheld, 
and takes no remedial action.”  Respondent Tropp submitted his fourth motion 
knowingly omitting material information that would have clarified his misleading 
assertion that the trial judge met with his ex-wife’s counsel without Tropp or, by 
omission, that his own co-counsel was present.  Standard 7.2 provides that 
“[s]uspension is appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a 
violation of a duty owed as a professional and causes injury or potential injury to a 
client, the public, or the legal system.”   
In this case, respondent only succeeded in obtaining a recusal, ultimately in 
his fourth motion, due to his violation of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar.  In 
so doing, he caused harm to the judicial system and unnecessary delays associated 
with reassignment to a new judge.  These serious violations by respondent, 
committed in an effort to obtain some personal unfair advantage in the litigation, 
warrant a rehabilitative suspension.  Thus, for the foregoing reasons, I dissent. 
CANADY, J., concurs. 
 
 
 
 
Case No. SC11-45 
Page 5 
 
 
A True Copy 
Test: 
 
 
aa 
Served: 
KENNETH LAWRENCE MARVIN 
JENNIFER R. FALCONE MOORE 
DANIEL EDGAR TROPP 
HON. ANDREA RICKER WOLFSON, JUDGE