Title: The Florida Bar v. Brakefield

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

679 So. 2d 766 (1996)
THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant,
v.
Billy A. BRAKEFIELD, Respondent.
No. 85003.

Supreme Court of Florida.
September 5, 1996.
John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, and John T. Berry, Staff Counsel, Tallahassee; and Bonnie L. Mahon and Susan R. Gralla Zemankiewicz, Assistant Staff Counsel, Tampa, for Complainant.
Billy A. Brakefield, pro se, Holiday, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
We have for review the complaint of The Florida Bar and the referee's report regarding alleged ethical breaches by Billy A. Brakefield. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.
The referee made the following findings of fact as to the Bar's complaint based on the evidence presented at the hearing:
The referee recommended that Brakefield be found guilty of violating the following disciplinary rules:
Before recommending discipline, the referee took into account Brakefield's prior record:
The referee found no mitigating factors, one aggravating factor (the prior admonishment on February 2, 1992 for a similar problem), and recommended the following discipline:
Brakefield contends that the referee's findings of fact are not adequately supported by the evidence. We disagree. Our review of the record indicates that Brakefield failed to diligently and competently represent his clients; he abandoned them without first withdrawing from representation; he failed to advise his clients that he was declining representation on some legal matters; and he failed to protect his clients' interests upon withdrawal.
The referee's findings of fact are entitled to a presumption of correctness when, as in the instant case, they are supported by competent substantial evidence. Florida Bar v. MacMillan, 600 So. 2d 457, 459 (Fla.1992). Absent a showing that such findings are clearly erroneous or lacking in evidentiary support, they will not be disturbed by this Court. Id. Brakefield has made no such showing and we accept the referee's findings of fact and recommendations concerning guilt.
*770 Brakefield next argues that the referee failed to consider any mitigating factors such as the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, his personal problems, remorse, and an unreasonable delay in the disciplinary proceedings which prejudiced his normal ability to recall specific conversations two to three years after the fact. The record indicates that Brakefield failed to present evidence of mitigation, remorse, or personal problems. Likewise, he presented no evidence of prejudice caused by any alleged delay in the disciplinary proceedings as required under Florida Bar v. Lehrman, 485 So. 2d 1276, 1278 (Fla.1986).
Based on the foregoing, we adopt the referee's recommended discipline in its entirety. Cf. Florida Bar v. Patterson, 530 So. 2d 285 (Fla.1988) (one-year suspension appropriate for failing to communicate with clients and return documents; abandoning clients by leaving the state without notice; neglecting legal matters entrusted to him; and providing faulty representation). Brakefield is hereby suspended for a period of six months and thereafter until he: proves rehabilitation; successfully completes The Florida Bar's Ethics School; serves one year on probation consecutive to his current term; reimburses Francis R. Lakel in the amount of $111.00; and pays the costs in these proceedings. The suspension will be effective thirty days from the filing of this opinion so that Brakefield can close out his practice and protect the interests of existing clients. If Brakefield 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. Brakefield 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, Brakefield 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, Brakefield 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 and costs in the amount of $2,568.30 is entered in favor of The Florida Bar against Brakefield, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.