Title: The Florida Bar v. Kelner

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

670 So. 2d 62 (1996)
THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant,
v.
Milton KELNER, Respondent.
No. 84435.

Supreme Court of Florida.
March 21, 1996.
John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director and John T. Berry, Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, Florida; and Jan Wichrowski, Bar Counsel, Orlando, Florida, for Complainant.
John D. Kelner of the Law Offices of John D. Kelner, Miami, Florida, 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 Milton Kelner. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. We approve the report.
The referee made the following findings of fact based on the evidence presented:
Based upon the above findings, the referee recommends as follows:
Our review of the record shows that competent, substantial evidence supports the referee's findings of fact and recommendations of guilt and we approve those findings and recommendations.
Kelner argues that he did not act intentionally in disobeying the court's order in limine and that, as a result, the referee's recommended discipline is excessive. We disagree. Our review of the record reveals that Kelner repeatedly violated the trial court's order even after being admonished by the trial judge. Further, as noted above, competent, substantial evidence supports the referee's recommendation that Kelner violated Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 4-3.4(e) for alluding to matters, in trial, which he did not reasonably believe to be relevant or supported by admissible evidence. While Kelner has a duty to zealously represent his clients, this duty does not require that he violate a court order and produce a mistrial.
We approve of the referee's recommended discipline and order that Kelner be publicly reprimanded by publication of this opinion in *64 Southern Reporter. Judgment for costs in the amount of $2,001.53 is entered for The Florida Bar against Milton Kelner, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
KOGAN, J., recused.