Title: The Florida Bar v. Jordan

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

705 So. 2d 1387 (1998)
THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant,
v.
Robert Paul JORDAN, II, Respondent.
No. 89111.

Supreme Court of Florida.
February 5, 1998.
*1388 John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director and John T. Berry, Staff Counsel, Tallahassee; and Jan Wichrowski, Rose Ann DiGangi-Schneider and James W. Keeter, Bar Counsel, Orlando, for Complainant.
Robert P. Jordan, II, pro se, Palm Bay, Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
We have for review the complaint of The Florida Bar and the referee's report regarding alleged ethical breaches by Robert Paul Jordan II. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. We approve the report.
The referee made the following findings of fact based on evidence presented at the disciplinary hearing:
Based on these findings of fact, the referee reached the following conclusions concerning guilt:
In his petition for review, Jordan challenges the referee's conclusion that he violated rule 4-1.8(h). Our review of the record, however, shows that competent substantial evidence supports the referee's findings of fact and conclusions concerning guilt and accordingly "this Court is precluded from reweighing the evidence and substituting its judgment for that of the referee." Florida Bar v. MacMillan, 600 So. 2d 457, 459 (Fla.1992). Furthermore, a party contesting the findings and conclusions "carries the burden of demonstrating that there is no evidence in the record to support those findings or that the record evidence clearly contradicts the conclusions." Florida Bar v. Spann, 682 So. 2d 1070, 1073 (Fla.1996). Jordan has failed in this burden. We adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions concerning guilt.
Based on the above violations of the disciplinary rules, the referee recommended that the following disciplinary action be taken against Jordan:
Jordan seeks review of the recommended discipline, arguing that the referee erred in considering certain aspects of his prior disciplinary record and that the recommended discipline is too harsh. We disagree. Jordan's prior disciplinary record is relevant when determining appropriate discipline in the present case. See Fla. Std. for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 9.22. Nor is the recommended discipline too harsh. See, e.g., Florida Bar v. Morrison, 669 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 1996) (imposing a one-year suspension for neglect resulting in prejudice); Florida Bar v. King, 664 So. 2d 925 (Fla.1995) (imposing a three-year suspension for neglect resulting in prejudice); Florida Bar v. Greenspahn, 396 So. 2d 182 (Fla.1981) (imposing an eighteen month suspension for neglect resulting in prejudice).
The Court will not second-guess a referee's recommended discipline "as long as that discipline has a reasonable basis in existing caselaw." Florida Bar v. Laing, 695 So. 2d 299, 304 (Fla.1997). Accordingly, Robert Paul Jordan, II, is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Florida for one year and thereafter until he proves rehabilitation, including passage of the Florida Bar Examination. The suspension will be effective immediately upon filing of this opinion.[1] Judgement for costs in the amount of $1,427.49 is hereby entered in favor of The Florida Bar against Robert Paul Jordan, II, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
KOGAN, C.J., OVERTON, SHAW, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., and GRIMES, Senior Justice, concur.
[1]  Jordan was recently suspended for committing additional breaches and has not yet been reinstated to the Bar. See Florida Bar v. Jordan, 690 So. 2d 1301 (Fla.1997); Florida Bar v. Jordan, 682 So. 2d 548, 550 (Fla.1996).