Title: The Florida Bar v. Nunes

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

679 So. 2d 744 (1996)
THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant,
v.
David Smith NUNES, Respondent.
No. 85451.

Supreme Court of Florida.
July 18, 1996.
Rehearing Denied September 12, 1996.
John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director and John T. Berry, Staff Counsel, Tallahassee; and Ronna Friedman Young, Bar Counsel, Fort Lauderdale, for Complainant.
David S. Nunes, pro se, Fort Lauderdale; and Peter Ticktin, Boca Raton, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
We have for review the complaint of The Florida Bar (the Bar) and the referee's report regarding alleged ethical breaches by David Smith Nunes. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. We approve the report.
The referee made the following findings of fact pursuant to the Bar's four-count complaint:
The referee made the following recommendations of guilt and discipline:
Nunes contends that his handling of both the Burton and Whynes matters was reasonable. Competent substantial evidence in the record, however, supports the referee's findings that Nunes's actions were incompetent and futileboth Brauwerman and Marmar testified to that effect. We approve the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of guilt. See Florida Bar v. MacMillan, 600 So. 2d 457 (Fla.1992) (a referee's findings will be approved when supported by competent substantial evidence).
*747 Nunes contends that the recommended discipline is excessive. We disagree for three reasons. First, Nunes's representation in both the Burton and Whynes cases was clearly incompetent, as Brauwerman and Marmar attested to. Second, both Burton and Whynes were prejudiced by Nunes's actions: Burton expended time, effort, and several thousand dollars in a futile effort to win residency for his son, and Whynes was deprived of any reasonable chance of interdicting his son's deportation. And finally, the clients were exploitedwhether deliberately or notby Nunes for his own financial gain. In the Burton case in particular, Nunes extracted a hefty fee for services that virtually every practitioner in the field knows cannot be rendered ("I mean that's the first thing law clerks learn," Brauwerman testified).
In light of the above and considering Nunes's prior disciplinary record,[1] we find the recommended discipline appropriate. Cf. Florida Bar v. Lawless, 640 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 1994) (ninety-day suspension appropriate for deficient representation in immigration matter where lawyer had prior disciplinary record). We approve the referee's report in its entirety.
David Smith Nunes is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Florida for ninety days and thereafter until he repays Burton $2,225. Upon reinstatement, Nunes shall be placed on probation for one year, which probation shall run concurrently with any unserved probationary period remaining in Florida Bar v. Nunes, 661 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 1995). During this one-year period, Nunes shall complete twenty-five hours of continuing legal education, consisting of twenty hours of immigration law and five hours of ethics.
Nunes's suspension shall be effective thirty days from the filing of this opinion so that Nunes can close out his practice and protect the interests of existing clients. If Nunes 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. Nunes shall accept no new business from the date this opinion is filed until the suspension is completed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Rule Regulating The Florida Bar 3-5.1(g), upon receipt of this order of suspension, Nunes shall forthwith furnish a copy of the order to all his clients with matters pending in his practice. Furthermore, within thirty days after receipt of this order, Nunes shall furnish staff counsel of the Bar with a sworn affidavit listing the names and addresses of all clients who have been furnished copies of the order. Judgment for costs in the amount of $2,751.08 is hereby entered in favor of The Florida Bar against Nunes, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
[1]  Nunes was given a private reprimand in 1986 and a public reprimand and 10-day suspension in 1995 for sending to opposing counsel's client a letter criticizing opposing counsel's handling of the case. See Florida Bar v. Nunes, 661 So. 2d 1202 (Fla.1995).