Title: - The Florida Bar v. Howard Michael Scheinberg

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC11-1865 
____________ 
 
THE FLORIDA BAR,  
Complainant, 
 
vs. 
 
HOWARD MICHAEL SCHEINBERG,  
Respondent. 
 
[June 20, 2013] 
 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
We have for review a referee’s report recommending that Respondent 
Howard Michael Scheinberg be found guilty of professional misconduct in 
violation of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar (Bar Rules) and suspended for 
one year.  Respondent Scheinberg has filed a petition for review of the report.  We 
have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.  As discussed below, we approve 
the referee’s findings of fact and recommendation as to guilt.  However, we 
disapprove the referee’s recommended discipline.  We conclude that Scheinberg’s 
serious misconduct in this case warrants a two-year suspension from the practice of 
law in Florida. 
 
- 2 - 
FACTS 
 
In September 2011, The Florida Bar filed a complaint against Scheinberg, 
alleging that he engaged in misconduct in violation of Bar Rule 4-8.4(d) (a lawyer 
shall not engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is 
prejudicial to the administration of justice).  A referee was appointed to consider 
the matter.  Following the referee’s appointment, Scheinberg filed a motion to 
dismiss the complaint, which alleged that the Bar (or one of its agents) breached 
confidentiality in violation of Bar Rule 3-7.1 (Confidentiality).1
 
In 2007, Scheinberg was the lead prosecutor in State of Florida v. Omar 
Loureiro, a first-degree capital murder case in which the State was seeking the 
death penalty.  Former Judge Ana Gardiner was the presiding judge in the case.  
  The referee 
entered an order denying the motion.  Thereafter, the referee held a hearing in the 
case; she has submitted a Report of Referee for the Court’s review, in which she 
makes the following findings and recommendations. 
                                         
 
1.  Bar Rule 3-7.1(a) provides: 
All matters including files, preliminary investigation reports, 
interoffice memoranda, records of investigations, and the records in 
trials and other proceedings under these rules, except those 
disciplinary matters conducted in circuit courts, are property of The 
Florida Bar. All of those matters shall be confidential and shall not be 
disclosed except as provided herein. When disclosure is permitted 
under these rules, it shall be limited to information concerning the 
status of the proceedings and any information that is part of the public 
record as defined in these rules. 
 
- 3 - 
On March 27, 2007, the jury returned a verdict finding Loureiro guilty of first-
degree murder.  Subsequently, on May 20, 2007, the jury recommended the death 
penalty; on August 24, 2007, former Judge Gardiner imposed the death penalty.  
During the period of time from March 23, 2007, four days before the jury returned 
its guilty verdict in Loureiro, to August 24, 2007, the day that former Judge 
Gardiner imposed the death penalty, Scheinberg and Gardiner engaged in 
substantial personal communications by phone or text message.  Specifically, 
Scheinberg has admitted that he and former Judge Gardiner exchanged 949 cell 
phone calls and 471 text messages during that period.  Scheinberg did not disclose 
these communications to the attorney representing Loureiro. 
 
Following Loureiro’s conviction and sentence, his attorneys initiated a direct 
appeal.  However, when the communications between Scheinberg and former 
Judge Gardiner were discovered, the Broward State Attorney’s office agreed to a 
new trial in the case.  The referee found: “The undisclosed conduct between former 
Judge Ana Gardiner and the respondent, contributed to the decision by the State of 
Florida, through its Broward State Attorney to agree to a new trial in State of 
Florida v. Omar Loureiro to dispel any public misconception that there was any 
denial of due process.” 
 
Based on these factual findings, the referee recommends that Scheinberg be 
found guilty of violating Bar Rule 4-8.4(d) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct in 
 
- 4 - 
connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of 
justice).  The referee observed: “The undisclosed communications between the 
judge and Respondent prejudiced the system.  The communication should have 
been revealed to opposing counsel and failing to make such a disclosure was also 
prejudicial to the administration of justice.” 
 
The referee found three aggravating factors in this case: a pattern of 
misconduct; multiple offenses; and substantial experience in the practice of law.  
The referee also found four mitigating factors: the absence of a prior disciplinary 
record; full and free disclosure to the disciplinary board or cooperative attitude 
toward the proceedings; good character or reputation; and remorse. 
 
As to the sanction, the referee recommends that Scheinberg be suspended 
from the practice of law for one year.  The referee also awarded costs to The 
Florida Bar, in the amount of $3,881.96. 
 
As noted, Scheinberg has filed a petition for review of the referee’s report, 
challenging the referee’s recommendation as to guilt, as well as the recommended 
sanction.  Scheinberg also challenges the referee’s denial of his motion to dismiss.  
However, we find, without further discussion, that the referee did not abuse her 
discretion in denying Scheinberg’s motion. 
ANALYSIS 
The Referee’s Recommendation as to Guilt 
 
- 5 - 
 
While the facts in this case are not disputed, Scheinberg contends that such 
facts do not support the referee’s recommendation that he be found guilty of 
violating Bar Rule 4-8.4(d).  In reviewing a referee’s recommendations as to guilt, 
the Court has repeatedly stated that the referee’s factual findings must be sufficient 
under the applicable rules to support the recommendations as to guilt.  See Fla. Bar 
v. Shoureas, 913 So. 2d 554, 557-58 (Fla. 2005). 
 
Rule 4-8.4(d) provides that a lawyer shall not “engage in conduct in 
connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of 
justice.”  Here, the referee found that Scheinberg’s extensive personal 
communications with former Judge Gardiner, which occurred while Gardiner was 
the presiding judge in the Loureiro capital murder case, ultimately contributed to 
the State’s decision to retry the case.  Thus, the referee found that Scheinberg’s 
conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of rule 4-
8.4(d).  We agree.   
Although the Court has long held that ex parte communications between a 
lawyer and presiding judge are “dangerous and destructive of the impartiality of 
the judiciary,” see Rose v. State, 601 So. 2d 1181, 1183 (Fla. 1992), we have not 
considered a case like the one presented here, where the communications at issue 
did not pertain to the pending case.  Scheinberg and Gardiner engaged in a 
substantial number of personal communications, including more than nine hundred 
 
- 6 - 
personal cell phone calls and more than four hundred text messages in a five-
month period.  It is not disputed that their conversations were personal in nature 
and did not pertain to the Loureiro case.  However, it is also clear that their 
communications were not casual or administrative, such as the type of 
communication that might occur when a lawyer and judge pass each other in the 
hallway or when they serve on the same committees.  Their extensive 
communications, once discovered, created an appearance of impropriety in the 
case.  We find guidance in In re Adams, 932 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 2006), in which we 
held that a judge engaged in misconduct when he became involved in a romantic 
relationship with an attorney who appeared before him, and continued to preside 
over matters in which the attorney appeared as counsel.  In Adams, we stated: 
Even in the absence of evidence that a romantic relationship 
with an attorney practicing in a judge’s court has influenced the 
judge’s judgment, the judge’s authority necessarily suffers.  First, the 
intimate relationship itself is contrary to the judge’s role of 
maintaining detached neutrality as to the litigants and lawyers who 
appear in his or her courtroom. Second, in continuing to preside over 
cases in which the lawyer appears during the relationship, the judge 
necessarily depletes the single most important source of his or her 
authority—the perception of the legal community and public that the 
judge is absolutely impartial in deciding cases.   
 
Id. at 1027.  In this case, we conclude that Scheinberg’s numerous personal 
communications with former Judge Gardiner similarly served to damage the 
perception of judicial impartiality. 
 
- 7 - 
Moreover, it is clear that the communications between Scheinberg and 
former Judge Gardiner were a significant reason that the State agreed to retry the 
Loureiro case.  Scheinberg’s witness during the final hearing before the referee 
testified that, but for the contact between Scheinberg and former Judge Gardiner, 
there would have been no need for a new trial.  Accordingly, we hold that the 
referee’s factual findings are sufficient to support her recommendation that 
Scheinberg be found guilty of conduct in connection with the practice of law that 
was prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of Bar Rule 4-8.4(d).   
The Referee’s Recommended Sanction 
 
We turn next to the referee’s recommended sanction, a one-year suspension.  
In reviewing a referee’s recommended discipline, this Court’s scope of review is 
broader than that afforded to the referee’s findings of fact because, ultimately, it is 
the Court’s responsibility to order the appropriate sanction.  See Fla. Bar v. 
Anderson, 538 So. 2d 852, 854 (Fla. 1989); see also art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.  
However, generally speaking 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). 
 
Initially, we address the referee’s findings in aggravation and mitigation.  
Scheinberg challenges the referee’s findings in aggravation and mitigation.  In 
 
- 8 - 
particular, he argues that the referee should have considered additional mitigating 
factors – the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive; personal or emotional 
problems resulting from Scheinberg’s divorce; good faith efforts to rectify the 
consequences of his misconduct; and the Bar’s delay in prosecuting this case – and 
should have afforded greater weight to the four mitigating factors discussed in the 
report (the absence of a prior disciplinary record, a cooperative attitude, good 
character, and remorse).  We have stated: “Like other factual findings, a referee’s 
findings of mitigation and aggravation carry a presumption of correctness and will 
be upheld unless clearly erroneous or without support in the record.  A referee’s 
failure to find that an aggravating factor or mitigating factor applies is due the 
same deference.”  Fla. Bar v. Germain, 957 So. 2d 613, 621 (Fla. 2007) (citation 
omitted).  Because we conclude that the referee’s findings in aggravation and 
mitigation are not clearly erroneous, we approve those findings in full.  Although 
Scheinberg did present compelling evidence to show his good character and 
reputation in the legal community, such evidence does not outweigh the 
seriousness of his misconduct in this case. 
 
Next, as to the referee’s recommended one-year suspension, Scheinberg 
urges the Court to disapprove the suspension and instead impose a lesser sanction.  
However, we believe that the serious nature of his misconduct, and the harm it 
caused to the administration of justice in the Loureiro case, warrants a severe 
 
- 9 - 
sanction.  Thus, we disapprove the referee’s recommended discipline, and instead 
suspend Scheinberg from the practice of law for two years. 
 
As we noted above, there is little case law from this Court that addresses the 
situation presented in this case, where an attorney engages in extensive personal 
communications with a presiding judge in a capital case, without disclosing those 
communications to the opposing party.  The Report of Referee cites Florida Bar v. 
Mason, 334 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1976), in which the Court suspended an attorney for one 
year for egregious ex parte communications with Justices of the Florida Supreme 
Court concerning a pending case.  In Mason, the Court noted that the ex parte 
communications at issue were “fundamentally wrong,” and that “there can be no 
temporizing with an offense the commission of which serves to destruct the 
judicial process.”  Id. at 6. 
 
Here, there is no dispute that the communications between Scheinberg and 
former Judge Gardiner did not concern the Loureiro case.  Nonetheless, we do find 
guidance in Mason, in that Scheinberg’s conduct similarly created an appearance 
of impropriety and caused harm to the judicial process.  Scheinberg and Gardiner 
engaged in a substantial number of personal communications that were not 
disclosed to the opposing party and his attorney.  Moreover, this conduct occurred 
in the context of a capital first-degree murder case where the judge had to rule on 
motions made by and against the respondent and where the judge could, and did, 
 
- 10 - 
impose the ultimate sentence of death.  The communications between Scheinberg 
and former Judge Gardiner led to an investigation and, ultimately, caused the 
Loureiro case to be retried, a process which consumed court resources, as well as 
the resources of opposing counsel.  Given the seriousness of Scheinberg’s 
misconduct and the harm it caused to the administration of justice in the Loureiro 
case, together with the aggravating and mitigating factors found by the referee, we 
hold that a two-year suspension is the appropriate discipline.  Thus, we disapprove 
the referee’s recommended sanction, and instead suspend Scheinberg for two 
years. 
CONCLUSION 
 
Accordingly, Howard Michael Scheinberg is hereby suspended from the 
practice of law in Florida for two years.  The suspension will be effective thirty 
days from the filing of this opinion so that Scheinberg can close out his practice 
and protect the interests of existing clients.  If Scheinberg 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.  Scheinberg shall fully comply with Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 
3-5.1(h).  Further, Scheinberg shall accept no new business from the date this 
opinion is filed until he is reinstated. 
 
- 11 - 
 
Judgment is entered for The Florida Bar, 651 East Jefferson Street, 
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300, for recovery of costs from Howard Michael 
Scheinberg in the amount of $3,881.96, for which sum let execution issue. 
 
It is so ordered. 
POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, LABARGA, 
and PERRY, 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 Kenneth Lawrence Marvin, Staff 
Counsel, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida, and Michael C. Greenberg, Bar 
Counsel, The Florida Bar, Sunrise, Florida, 
 
 
for Complainant 
 
Kevin P. Tynan of Richardson & Tynan, P.L.C., Tamarac, Florida, and Randolph 
Braccialarghe of Nova Southeastern University, Shepard Broad Law Center, Fort 
Lauderdale, Florida 
, 
 
for Respondent