Title: The Florida Bar v. Donnette Sonya Russell Love

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC12-223 
____________ 
 
THE FLORIDA BAR,  
Complainant, 
 
vs. 
 
DONNETTE SONYA RUSSELL-LOVE,  
Respondent. 
 
[January 23, 2014] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
We have for review a referee’s report recommending that Respondent 
Donnette Sonya Russell-Love be found guilty of professional misconduct in 
violation of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar (Bar rules) and suspended from 
the practice of law for ten days.  Respondent Russell-Love filed a notice of intent 
to seek review of the referee’s report and recommendations.  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 Russell-Love’s serious misconduct in 
this case warrants a ninety-one day suspension from the practice of law in Florida. 
 
- 2 - 
FACTS 
 
In February 2012, The Florida Bar filed a complaint against Russell-Love, 
alleging that she engaged in misconduct in violation of Bar rule 4-8.4(c) (a lawyer 
shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation).  A referee was appointed to consider the matter.  Following a 
hearing, the referee submitted his report for the Court’s review, in which he makes 
the following findings and recommendations. 
 
Russell-Love and the Bar entered into a Joint Pretrial Stipulation in this case, 
stipulating to most of the relevant, material facts.  In September 2009, Russell-
Love was retained by a client, a citizen of the Bahamas; Russell-Love is also of 
Bahamian descent, and the referee found she is a “distant cousin” of the client.  
Russell-Love was hired to assist the client in securing a P-1 visa, a type of visa that 
would allow the client to legally enter the United States to participate in 
professional tennis tournaments held by the United States Tennis Association 
(USTA).  In December 2009, Russell-Love prepared and submitted a form I-129 
(Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker) to the United States Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) on behalf of the client; she also submitted a form 
G-28 (Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative). 
 
Following her submission, Russell-Love was notified by USCIS that the 
petition was insufficient, and that the name of the organization sponsoring the 
 
- 3 - 
tournament was needed.  She contacted the client and learned that the tournament 
was sponsored by USTA.  Accordingly, in February 2010, Russell-Love sent a 
letter to USTA, requesting that the organization provide a letter confirming that the 
client was expected to participate in several tournaments in the United States.  On 
March 24, 2010, Russell-Love received a letter from Idelle Pierre-Louis, a USTA 
employee, stating: 
 
[The client] has requested a letter that will assist her in obtaining a 
Visa to enable travel to the United States to participate in professional 
tennis tournaments.  This letter is meant just to inform the consular 
office that the player has requested to play the event and should not be 
considered as an endorsement. 
 
(Emphasis added.)   
The following day, Russell-Love prepared and submitted to USCIS an 
amended form I-129.  The referee found that Russell-Love knowingly and 
deliberately listed the USTA as the “Company or Organization” filing the form.  
She listed her law office address as the contact address for the USTA.  She also 
hand wrote Ms. Pierre-Louis’s name in the petitioner’s signature line.  The 
signature portion of the form required the petitioner to “certify, under penalty of 
perjury under the laws of the United States of America, that this petition and the 
evidence submitted with it is all true and correct.  If filing this on behalf of an 
organization, I certify that I am empowered to do so by that organization.”  
 
- 4 - 
Russell-Love testified that she was not empowered by the USTA to file any 
documents on its behalf. 
Russell-Love also prepared and submitted an amended form G-28.  On this 
form, Russell-Love listed USTA in the space designated for the “Principal 
Petitioner, Applicant, or Respondent.”  She again hand wrote Ms. Pierre-Louis’s 
name in the portion of the form designated for the petitioner’s signature.  She also 
signed the form, declaring under penalty of perjury that the information provided 
was true and correct.  Russell-Love admitted that the manner in which she 
completed the form G-28 indicated that she was the attorney appearing on behalf 
of the USTA.  However, the referee did find it was of “some significance” that 
Russell-Love attached the March 24, 2010, letter from USTA, and she submitted a 
separate cover letter that identified her as the attorney representing the client. 
In April 2010, USCIS issued a Notice of Action, indicating that the client 
was approved for a P-1 visa.  The Notice lists the “Petitioner” as the USTA, and 
the “Beneficiary” as the client.   
 
After receiving the P-1 visa, the client had some concerns about the short 
period of time that was allowed for her travel to the United States, and she 
contacted a United States Customs and Border Protection Officer for clarification.  
The officer asked the client to send him a copy of the immigration forms she 
submitted to USCIS.  Upon reviewing the forms, the officer discovered that the 
 
- 5 - 
signature on the forms attributed to Ms. Pierre-Louis did not match the signature 
on the March 24, 2010, USTA letter.  The officer then contacted USTA.  On May 
13, 2010, USTA responded in a letter stating: “[P]lease be advised that the USTA 
did not agree to petition for [the client], the USTA did not pay any applications 
fees for [the client’s] immigration petition and Ms. Pierre-Louis did not sign the 
Form I-129 included with your letter.”   
Based on his investigation, the customs officer reported the filing of false 
immigration documents to a USCIS field officer in the United States Embassy in 
Kingston, Jamaica.  Ultimately, the client was charged with violations of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, and Russell-Love was referred to The Florida 
Bar.  The USCIS field officer testified that the client is now subject to “permanent 
inadmissibility” from the United States; the client may seek a waiver to allow her 
to enter the country, although the referee found this is a “burdensome and 
expensive process.”   
 
Based on these factual findings, the referee recommends that Russell-Love 
be found guilty of violating Bar rule 4-8.4(c) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).  The referee found that 
Russell-Love violated the rule by: misrepresenting that she was the attorney for 
USTA; misrepresenting that USTA was petitioning for a visa on behalf of the 
 
- 6 - 
client; and by printing the name of a USTA employee on the signature line in the I-
129 and G-28 forms. 
 
The referee did not find any aggravating factors in this case.  He did find 
four mitigating factors: the absence of a prior disciplinary record; inexperience in 
the practice of law; character or reputation; and remorse.  The referee also noted 
that Russell-Love was “overwhelmed in her personal life with her ailing parents, 
marital discord . . . (which necessarily also involved her young child) and 
difficulties involving other family members.”  However, the referee found that the 
stress created by her personal hardships was not sufficient to excuse her 
misconduct.   
 
As to the sanction, the referee recommends that Russell-Love be suspended 
from the practice of law for ten days.  The referee awarded costs to The Florida 
Bar, in the amount of $2,855.91. 
 
As noted, Russell-Love sought review of the referee’s report.  She 
challenges the referee’s findings of fact, recommendation as to guilt, and the 
recommended ten-day suspension. 
ANALYSIS 
The Referee’s Findings of Fact and Recommendation as to Guilt 
 
Initially, to the extent that Russell-Love seeks review of the referee’s 
findings of fact, we hold that such facts are supported by competent, substantial 
 
- 7 - 
evidence.  See Fla. Bar v. Frederick, 756 So. 2d 79, 86 (Fla. 2000) (stating that 
when the referee’s findings are supported by “competent, substantial evidence in 
the record,” this Court is “precluded from reweighing the evidence and substituting 
[our] judgment for that of the referee”) (citing Fla. Bar v. Lange, 711 So. 2d 518, 
520 n.5 (Fla. 1998)); see also Fla. Bar v. Jordan, 705 So. 2d 1387, 1390 (Fla. 
1998).  As noted, the record reflects that Russell-Love and the Bar entered into a 
Joint Pretrial Stipulation, stipulating to most of the relevant and material facts.  
Accordingly, we approve the referee’s factual findings without further discussion. 
 
We also approve the referee’s recommendation that Russell-Love be found 
guilty of violating Bar rule 4-8.4(c).  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(c) provides that a lawyer shall not “engage in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.”  Here, the referee found that 
Russell-Love violated rule 4-8.4(c) in several ways: she misrepresented that she 
was the attorney for USTA; she misrepresented that USTA was petitioning for the 
P-1 visa on behalf of the client; and she printed the name of a USTA employee on 
both amended forms I-129 and G-28.  We conclude that the referee’s 
recommendations are well supported by the facts.  Russell-Love has admitted that, 
 
- 8 - 
in submitting the amended form I-129, she listed the USTA as the “Company or 
Organization” filing the petition, a knowingly false statement.  She also admitted 
that she hand wrote Ms. Pierre-Louis’s name in the signature portion of the form.  
That section requires the signer to “certify, under penalty of perjury under the laws 
of the United States of America, that this petition and the evidence submitted with 
it is all true and correct.  If filing this on behalf of an organization, I certify that I 
am empowered to do so by that organization.”   
Similarly, in submitting the amended form G-28, Russell-Love has admitted 
that she listed the USTA as the “Principal Petitioner, Applicant, or Respondent.”  
She also admitted that she hand wrote Ms. Pierre-Louis’s name in the signature 
portion of this form, indicating to USCIS that Russell-Love was appearing on 
behalf of the USTA.  Russell-Love signed the amended form and, in so doing, she 
declared that the information provided on the form was true and correct. 
Russell-Love urges this Court to disapprove the referee’s recommendation 
as to guilt because she contends there is no evidence to demonstrate the required 
intent to support a violation of Bar rule 4-8.4(c).  In general, we have held that in 
order to sustain a violation of rule 4-8.4(c), the Bar must prove intent as a 
necessary element of the violation.  See Fla. Bar v. Brown, 905 So. 2d 76, 81 (Fla. 
2005); Fla. Bar v. Lanford, 691 So. 2d 480, 480-81 (Fla. 1997).  However, the 
Court has also stated that to establish a lawyer’s intent, “it must only be shown that 
 
- 9 - 
the conduct was deliberate or knowing.”  Fla. Bar v. Head, 27 So. 3d 1, 9 (Fla. 
2010) (citing Fla. Bar v. Fredericks, 731 So. 2d 1249, 1252 (Fla. 1999)).  Here, the 
referee expressly found that Russell-Love “acted knowingly and deliberately in 
order to expedite the immigration filing for her client.”  She knowingly filled out 
the amended I-129 and G-28 forms in a manner that led USCIS to believe that the 
USTA was petitioning for the visa on behalf of the client, and that Russell-Love 
represented USTA.  Accordingly, we approve the referee’s recommendation that 
Russell-Love’s actions were dishonest and a misrepresentation of fact, in violation 
of Bar rule 4-8.4(c). 
The Referee’s Recommended Sanction 
We turn next to the referee’s recommended sanction, a ten-day 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 
our 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). 
 
- 10 - 
We agree with the referee’s recommendation that Russell-Love’s 
misconduct warrants a suspension.  Cf. Fla. Stds. Imposing Law. Sancs. 6.12 
(suspension is appropriate when a lawyer knows that false statements or documents 
are being submitted to the court or that material information is improperly being 
withheld, and takes no remedial action).  However, we disapprove the referee’s 
recommendation that she be suspended for only ten days.  Considering Russell-
Love’s misconduct, we conclude that a ninety-one day suspension is appropriate. 
The referee’s factual findings demonstrate that Russell-Love submitted false 
information on immigration forms she submitted to the United States government.  
This is a serious ethical violation.  Russell-Love acknowledged the immigration 
forms implied that USTA was petitioning for a P-1 visa on behalf of the client, and 
that she represented USTA, both of which were false statements.  Significantly, 
Russell-Love filled out or signed the portions of the revised forms declaring under 
penalty of perjury that the information therein was true and correct.  And, the 
referee found that she acted deliberately and knowingly in order to expedite the 
immigration filing.  We have held that dishonest conduct by a lawyer results in “an 
erosion of confidence on the part of the judiciary and the public in lawyers’ 
honesty.  There is no more serious impact upon the integrity of our judicial 
system.”  Fla. Bar v. Corbin, 701 So. 2d 334, 336 (Fla. 1997).  
 
- 11 - 
Moreover, Russell-Love’s actions caused harm to her client.  The USCIS 
field officer testified in this case that the client was charged with violations of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act based on Russell-Love’s misrepresentations, and 
that the client is now subject to “permanent inadmissibility” from the United 
States.  Although the client may seek a waiver of her status in order to enter the 
country, the client also testified that it is a burdensome process.   
Given the serious nature of Russell-Love’s misconduct and the harm caused 
to her client, the referee’s recommendation for a ten-day suspension is not 
appropriate, and a more severe sanction is warranted.  This Court has consistently 
stated that dishonesty and a lack of candor cannot be tolerated in a profession that 
relies on the truthfulness of its members.  Fla. Bar v. Rotstein, 835 So. 2d 241, 246 
(Fla. 2002) (citing Fla. Bar v. Korones), 752 So. 2d 586, 591 (Fla. 2000)).  Here, 
we hold that Russell-Love’s misconduct warrants a ninety-one day suspension.  
See Fla. Bar v. Baker, 810 So. 2d 876, 882 (Fla. 2002) (suspending an attorney for 
ninety-one days for forging his ex-wife’s signature on legal documents related to 
the sale of a home owned by the respondent and his ex-wife, and for having his 
secretary notarize the forged signature); Fla. Bar v. Berthiaume, 78 So. 3d 503, 511 
(Fla. 2011) (suspending an attorney for ninety-one days for signing and serving a 
false subpoena). 
 
- 12 - 
We have given consideration to the referee’s findings in mitigation.  The 
referee found four mitigating factors: the absence of a prior disciplinary record; 
inexperience in the practice of law; good character or reputation; and remorse.  
Notably, the referee found that, absent this isolated incident, Russell-Love is 
someone of high integrity.  Nonetheless, we conclude that the mitigating factors do 
not outweigh Russell-Love’s serious misconduct.   
CONCLUSION 
 
Accordingly, Respondent Russell-Love is hereby suspended for ninety-one 
days.  The suspension will be effective thirty days from the filing of this opinion so 
that Russell-Love can close out her practice and protect the interests of existing 
clients.  If Russell-Love notifies this Court in writing that she 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.  Russell-Love 
shall fully comply with Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 3-5.1(h).  Further, Russell-
Love shall accept no new business from the date of this opinion until she is 
reinstated. 
 
Judgment is entered for The Florida Bar, 651 East Jefferson Street, 
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300, for recovery of costs from Donnette Sonya 
Russell-Love in the amount of $2,855.91 for which sum let execution issue. 
 
It is so ordered. 
 
 
- 13 - 
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 Ghenete Elaine Wright Muir, 
Bar Counsel, The Florida Bar, Sunrise, Florida,  
 
for Complainant  
 
Donnette Sonya Russell-Love, pro se, Davie, Florida,  
 
for Respondent