Title: The Florida Bar v. Rose

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

607 So. 2d 394 (1992)
THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant,
v.
Michael I. ROSE, Respondent.
No. 78001.

Supreme Court of Florida.
September 24, 1992.
Rehearing Denied November 19, 1992.
John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director and John T. Berry, Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, and Paul A. Gross, Bar Counsel, Miami, for complainant.
Michael I. Rose, in pro se, of Michael I. Rose, P.A., Miami, and James F. Pollack of James F. Pollack, P.A., Co-Counsel, Coral Gables, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Michael I. Rose, attorney, seeks review of the referee's finding of guilt and recommended discipline. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.
After conducting two hearings, the referee made the following findings of fact:
The referee recommended that Rose be found guilty of violating Disciplinary Rule 1-102(B)(4) (conduct involving misrepresentation) of the former Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended that he be suspended for thirty days.
Rose does not quarrel with the findings of fact but asserts that the facts do not demonstrate that he was guilty of misrepresentation. We reject this argument. Prior to his divorce, Rose created an irrevocable trust for his children with his wife as custodian under the Uniform Gift for Minors Act. After the divorce, without her authority he signed his ex-wife's name to client agreement forms, stock certificates, and checks. As a consequence, he obtained the children's money without authorization of the custodian. The referee could properly find that Rose knew or should have known that he had no right to sign his ex-wife's name to the account and utilize the money in the account for his personal benefit.
Rose also argues that the recommended thirty-day suspension is too severe. However, we are convinced that Rose's conduct adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law. In Florida Bar v. Hosner, 520 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 1988), we pointed out that lawyers are held to a higher standard of conduct in business dealings than are nonlawyers and may be disciplined for conduct that is not related to the practice of law. Even in the absence of a prior disciplinary record, the referee's recommended discipline is most appropriate.
Accordingly, we approve the referee's findings and impose a thirty-day suspension. The suspension shall become effective on October 26, 1992, thereby giving respondent time to take the necessary steps to wind up his affairs and protect his clients' interests. Rose shall provide notice to his clients of his suspension and shall accept no new clients from the date of this opinion. Judgment for costs in the amount of $2,090.55 is hereby entered against Rose, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, SHAW, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.
[*]  At the hearing, Rose testified that Shearson Lehman had been made whole as a consequence of the arbitration award.