Title: The Florida Bar v. Nunes

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

661 So. 2d 1202 (1995)
THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant,
v.
David Smith NUNES, Respondent.
No. 84097.

Supreme Court of Florida.
October 26, 1995.
John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director and John T. Berry, Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, and Ronna Friedman Young, Bar Counsel, Ft. Lauderdale, for complainant.
David S. Nunes, Ft. Lauderdale, respondent, pro se.
PER CURIAM.
We have for review the complaint of The Florida 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 in her report:
The referee then made findings concerning the charges filed by the Bar:
Based on these facts, the referee recommended that Nunes be found guilty of disciplinary violations[1]:
The referee recommended that Nunes be disciplined, finding that three aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances were established:
In conclusion, the referee noted that Nunes had been privately reprimanded in 1986.
Nunes concedes that although he did send a copy of the letter to Gina Sherman, he should not be subject to discipline because: The content of the letter did not concern the subject of the suit; there was no evidence introduced showing that Nunes knew that Sherman worked for First Nationwide; and there was no evidence adduced showing that Sherman was employed by First Nationwide. Nunes further contends that the referee should not have taxed the Bar's entire costs against him and that the recommended discipline is out of line with other cases. We disagree.
Nunes's letter of June 25, 1993, by its plain language directly addresses Garcia's role in the First Nationwide foreclosure suit, and Nunes's letters and the testimony of Garcia show that Nunes knew Sherman worked for First Nationwide and was Garcia's contact on legal matters. The taxing of costs is within the referee's discretion and we find no abuse. See R.Regulating Fla.Bar 3-7.6(o)(2). The recommended discipline is in line with other cases. See, e.g., Florida Bar v. Hooper, 507 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 1987); Florida Bar v. Shapiro, 413 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 1982).
Competent substantial evidence supports the referee's findings of fact and conclusions as to guilt and we approve the report in its entirety. David Smith Nunes is hereby publicly reprimanded and suspended from the practice of law in Florida for ten days. Upon reinstatement he shall be placed on probation for eighteen months during which time he shall be supervised by a member of the Bar and must take and pass the ethics portion of the Florida bar examination. The suspension will 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. Judgment for costs in the amount of $2,927.16 is entered in favor of The Florida Bar against Nunes, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
[1]  The referee made additional findings as to Count 2 of the Bar's complaint:

The Florida Bar alleged that respondent engaged in a pattern of conduct which involved certifying that pleadings were mailed on a particular date and mailing them on a different date, usually a few days later. The referee finds that although there was some evidence presented which would appear to make respondent's certification and mailing procedures suspect, the evidence did not rise to the clear and convincing standard required for these proceedings.
But the referee recommended that Nunes be found not guilty of violating any rules as to this count:
Not guilty because the evidence did not rise to the standard of clear and convincing.