Case Title: The Florida Bar v. Larry B. Roberts

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC94-828

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2000-10-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
 
____________
No. SC94828
____________
THE FLORIDA BAR,
Complainant,
vs.
LARRY B. ROBERTS,
Respondent.
[October 19, 2000]
PER CURIAM.
We have for review the complaint of The Florida Bar and the referee’s report
regarding alleged ethical breaches by Larry B. Roberts.  Roberts petitions for
review, challenging the referee’s recommended discipline.  We have jurisdiction. 
Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.  For the reasons stated, we approve the referee’s findings
of fact and recommended discipline.
The Florida Bar filed a complaint against Roberts alleging various ethical
violations concerning his representation of a client in a dissolution of marriage
proceeding.  A hearing was held on June 11, 1999, and the referee made the
2
following findings of fact.
On September 24, 1996, a client hired Roberts to represent her in a
dissolution of marriage proceeding.  After being served with a petition for
dissolution, the client went to Roberts’ office for a scheduled appointment and was
informed that another attorney would be handling her case.  Roberts failed to
inform the client that this attorney was not affiliated with his law firm.  Roberts did
not have written permission from the client allowing him to refer her case to outside
counsel.  Moreover, when the referred attorney attempted to obtain the client’s
financial records from Roberts, he was informed that they had been misplaced.
The referred attorney thereafter failed to appear for two scheduled
appointments and could not be reached.  It was then that the client learned that he
was not an associate of Roberts’  firm.  Because the client was no longer satisfied
with her representation by the referred attorney, Roberts agreed to meet with her on
January 14, 1997.  At this meeting, Roberts attempted to return the client’s retainer
and advised her to hire new counsel.  The client did not want Roberts to withdraw
from the case because it had been four months since the divorce proceeding began. 
At this time, the client’s financial records had still not been found.  Roberts agreed
to remain on the case, and an agreement was executed.
Roberts subsequently attended a case management hearing on April 28,
3
1997.  Following this hearing, the client attempted on several occasions to discuss
the hearing with Roberts and requested a status report.  On May 12, 1997, the client
was notified that mediation had been scheduled for July 16, 1997.  On May 29,
1997, the client received a letter from Roberts informing her that he would be
closing his law offices as of 4 p.m. on May 30, 1997, and referring her to a third
attorney.  The client then called Roberts and insisted that he handle her case at
mediation.  Roberts assured the client that he would remain on her case and
represent her at the mediation.  The client called Roberts several times between
June 6, 1997, and June 23, 1997, to discuss the mediation; however, Roberts
refused or failed to return her calls.  The client then retained another attorney to
represent her on June 23, 1997, leaving new counsel less than a month to prepare
for mediation.
Based on this conduct, the referee found that Roberts had failed to keep the
client reasonably informed of the status of her representation in violation of rule 4-
1.4(a) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar and had failed to explain the matter
to the client to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make an
informed decision, in violation of rule 4-1.4(b). 
In aggravation, the referee considered Roberts’ disciplinary history,
consisting of:  (1) a private reprimand on May 8, 1984, for neglect; (2) an
1Though the failure to do so is not harmful error in this case, when mitigation
is found the referee should set forth with specificity those facts that support such a
finding.
4
admonishment on September 24, 1992, for “allowing kids to drink in his house”;
(3) an admonishment on December 15, 1993, for failing to communicate; (4) an
admonishment on January 20, 1995, for failing to comply with the Rules of
Discipline concerning the supervision of a suspended lawyer; and (5) a ninety-day
suspension on April 1, 1999, for lack of communication, failing to hold a client’s
funds in trust and collecting unearned fees.  In mitigation, the referee considered the
fact that Roberts was suffering from personal or emotional problems.1  Based on
these findings, the referee recommended that Roberts be suspended for six months
and thereafter until rehabilitation is proven and upon reinstatement be placed on one
year’s probation.  The referee recommended that the suspension run concurrent
with that imposed on April 1, 1999.
Neither party contests the referee’s findings of fact, and we find them to be
supported by the record.  See Florida Bar v. Vannier, 498 So. 2d 896, 898 (Fla.
1986).  Therefore, we approve the referee’s decision as to the violations of the
Rules of Professional Conduct.
Roberts, however, challenges the referee’s recommendation as to discipline
5
and argues that it should not be approved because it is based on an improper
aggravator.  Roberts argues that the referee erred in making his disciplinary
recommendation because the referee considered in aggravation Roberts’ prior
disciplinary proceeding occurring April 1, 1999.  Roberts contends that because
the conduct that was the subject of that proceeding occurred after the conduct in
the instant case, the referee is precluded from considering it in aggravation.  We do
not agree.
We considered a similar contention in Florida Bar v. Golden, 566 So. 2d
1286 (Fla. 1990).  In that case, Golden argued that the referee’s disciplinary
recommendation should not be followed because the referee erroneously
determined that Golden had committed cumulative misconduct and a prior
disciplinary offense.  See id. at 1287.  Golden argued that, at the time the
misconduct under review occurred, he had not committed any prior misconduct
because any prior misconduct was not subjected to discipline until after his
conduct in the case under review occurred.  See id.  This Court held that
cumulative misconduct is a relevant factor when determining the appropriate penalty
in a disciplinary matter.  See id. at 1287.  The Court found that it was proper for the
referee to consider the prior disciplinary proceeding, noting that cumulative
misconduct can be found “when the misconduct occurs near in time to the other
6
offenses, regardless of when discipline is imposed.”  Id. at 1287.  Thus, the referee
properly considered Roberts’ misconduct that resulted in the prior proceeding.
Roberts’ related argument, that had this been a criminal proceeding the
referee would not have been able to consider the subsequent misconduct, is also
without merit.  This Court has held that Bar disciplinary proceedings are neither
civil nor criminal but are quasi-judicial administrative proceedings to which many of
the technical requirements of a criminal case do not apply.  See Florida Bar v.
Vannier, 498 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 1986).
Because the referee properly considered the misconduct that resulted in the
April 1, 1999, suspension, cases cited by Roberts in support of a one-month
suspension had that proceeding been removed as an aggravating factor do not
apply.  Considering Roberts’ disciplinary history, we find that the referee’s
recommendation is reasonably supported by existing case law.  See Florida Bar v.
Fredericks, 731 So. 2d 1249, 1254 (Fla. 1999).
In Florida Bar v. Brakefield, 679 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 1996), and Florida Bar v.
Rolle, 661 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1995), this Court imposed a six-month suspension for
misconduct similar to what occurred in this case.  In Rolle the attorney was found
guilty of violating rule 4-1.3 for failing to act with reasonable diligence in
representing a client.  661 So. 2d at 298.  Rolle had two prior disciplinary actions. 
7
See id.  In Brakefield, the attorney was found guilty of violating rules 4-1.1, 4-1.3,
4-1.4(a), 4-1.4(b), and 1.16(d) for various acts of client neglect.  679 So. 2d at 769-
70.  Brakefield also had two prior disciplinary actions.  See id. at 679.  Thus, the
referee’s recommended discipline is reasonably supported by existing case law.
We here make the specific point that an attorney’s consideration of his or her
client’s interests and communication with the client at reasonable times in response
to the client’s inquiries are a vital and necessary part of the attorney-client
relationship.  We expect and require this of members of The Florida Bar and will
not hesitate to impose discipline upon Florida attorneys who do not fulfill these
obligations to their clients.
In conclusion, we approve the referee’s findings of fact.  As to discipline,
the referee recommended that Roberts’ six-month suspension run concurrent with
the ninety-day suspension imposed April 1, 1999.  Such a recommendation, if
followed, would result in an actual suspension of three months and require proof of
rehabilitation prior to reinstatement.  However, because the previous suspension
has terminated, in order to effectuate the intent of the referee, we hereby suspend
Roberts for ninety-one days, which will require proof of rehabilitation prior to
reinstatement.
Accordingly, Larry B. Roberts is hereby suspended from the practice of law
8
in Florida for ninety-one days and thereafter until he has shown proof of
rehabilitation.  Upon reinstatement, Roberts shall be on probation for a period of
one year.  The 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 law
and does not need the thirty days to protect existing clients, this Court will enter an
order making the suspension effective immediately.  Roberts shall accept no new
business from the date this opinion is filed until the suspension is completed. 
Judgment is entered for The Florida Bar, 650 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee,
Florida 32399, for recovery of costs from Larry B. Roberts in the amount of
$1,043.62, 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, Staff Counsel,
Tallahassee, Florida; and Monica Ann Frost and Thomas E. DeBerg, Assistant
Staff Counsels, Tampa, Florida,
 
for Complainant
9
Thomas G. Hersem, Clearwater, Florida,
for Respondent