Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): this Court will not second-guess the referee’s recommended discipline as long as it has a reasonable basis in existing case law and the Florida Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions. See Fla. Bar v. Temmer, 753 So.2d 555, 558 (Fla.1999). The referee’s findings of fact demonstrate that Mirk misappropriated $31,487.50 in client funds held in his trust account. This Court has long held that attorney misconduct involving the misuse or misappropriation of client funds is unquestionably one of the most serious offenses a lawyer can commit. See Fla. Bar. v. Martinez-Genova, 959 So.2d 241, 246 (Fla.2007). Indeed, disbarment is presumed the appropriate discipline when an attorney engages in this type of misconduct. Id.; see also Fla. Bar v. Valentine-Miller, 974 So.2d 333, 338 (Fla.2008) (<HOLDING>). We have also emphasized that the presumption 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that disbarment is the presumptively appropriate sanction under both the florida standards for imposing lawyer sanctions and case law when a lawyer misappropriates trust funds (B) holding that a finding of bad faith on the part of the offending lawyer is a prerequisite for imposing sanctions under 1927 (C) holding that even where a client was more sophisticated in business matters than the lawyer himself the lawyer should have assumed the client was relying on the lawyer for the legal aspects of the loan from the client to the lawyer to the same extent that the client would rely on the lawyer for advice were the client making the loan to a third person (D) holding that disbarment was the appropriate sanction for an attorneys repeated material misrepresentations (E) holding that disbarment was the appropriate sanction where an attorney misappropriated funds from his real estate partners
Output (English): holding that disbarment was the appropriate sanction for an attorneys repeated material misrepresentations