Case Name: THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Arthur James SPRINGER, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2004-04-29
Citations: 873 So. 2d 317
Docket Number: No. SC02-1687
Parties: THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Arthur James SPRINGER, Respondent.
Judges: ANSTEAD, C.J., and WELLS, PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 873
Pages: 317–326

Head Matter:
THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Arthur James SPRINGER, Respondent.
No. SC02-1687.
Supreme Court of Florida.
April 29, 2004.
John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, and John Anthony Boggs, Staff Counsel, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, FL; and Thomas Edward DeBerg, Assistant Staff Counsel, Tampa, FL, for Complainant.
Scott K. Tozian and Gwendolyn Hollst-rom Hinkle of Smith and Tozian, P.A., Tampa, FL, for Respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We have for review a referee's report regarding alleged ethical breaches by Arthur James Springer. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. For the reasons that follow, we approve the referee's factual findings and recommended discipline and hereby disbar Springer from the practice of law in Florida.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF GUILT
The Florida Bar filed a six-count complaint against Springer. At a disciplinary hearing, The Florida Bar and Springer stipulated to detailed facts which the referee adopted as the facts of the case. Based on these facts, the referee issued a report containing the following recommendations as to each count.
COUNT I
Howard Mitchell hired Springer to defend him in a real property partition action in Georgia brought by David Centa. While Springer was involved in the case, from December 1997 to November 2000, he never filed a pro hac vice motion or a notice of appearance with the Georgia trial court; thus, Springer did not file any documents with the court diming the case. Springer did communicate with the plaintiffs counsel, who informed Springer of the trial date set by the court. However, Springer did not appear at trial. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff Centa, and the court entered judgment against Mitchell. Even after the court entered judgment, when Mitchell asked about the case Springer told him "it's going to be fine." Springer prepared but did not file with the court a motion to set aside final judgment. He repeatedly lied to Mitchell, telling him that hearings had been scheduled on the motion and then postponed. Mitchell did not recover the value of his interest in the property, which he alleged was about $29,000.
On count I, the referee recommended that Springer be found guilty of violating the following Rules Regulating the Florida Bar: rule 4-1.1 (a lawyer shall provide competent representation to his client); rule 4-1.3 (an attorney shall act with reasonable diligence in the representation of his client); rule 4-1.4(a) (a lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information); rule 4-5.5 (a lawyer shall not practice law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction); rule 4-8.4(a) (a lawyer shall not violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct); rule 4-8.4(e) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); and rule 4-8.4(d) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice).
COUNT II
The Camelot Condominium Owners' Association, of which Howard Mitchell was president, hired Springer in 1993 to handle foreclosures of timeshare condominium units whose owners failed to pay their maintenance fees or taxes. In March 1998, Mitchell asked Springer about twenty-four foreclosure cases which had not been finalized. Springer gave Mitchell falsified copies of certificates of title to the twenty-four timeshare units, all dated April 9, 1998. Springer misrepresented to Mitchell that the twenty-four foreclosures were final. Mitchell sold some of the units to new owners, but in April 1999, Mitchell discovered that the certificates of title were not recorded and that the foreclosures were not finalized. The sales of units based on Springer's falsified certificates of title resulted in Camelot's having to resolve cases of multiple owners claiming the same unit, creating additional legal expenses and potentially harming Camelot's reputation.
On count II, the referee recommended that Springer be found guilty of violating rule 4-1.1 (competence); rule 4-1.3 (diligence); rule 4-1.4(a) (communication); rule 4~8.4(a) (violation of Rules of Professional Conduct); rule 4-8.4(c) (dishonest conduct); and rule 4-8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).
COUNT III
In December 1995, Howard Mitchell hired Springer to pursue a breach of agreement claim arising from Mitchell's sale of a house to Garland and Mary Cunningham. Springer failed to file a claim against the Cunninghams. In March 1999, Springer falsely told Mitchell that he had obtained a garnishment of Mr. Cunningham's wages. In August 1999, Mitchell learned of Springer's negligence in this and other cases, and Springer signed a letter admitting his negligence and promising diligence in the future. Despite his promises, in April 2000, Springer falsely represented to Mitchell that he was following up with Mr. Cunningham's employer to enforce a garnishment, when there was in fact no judgment to support a garnishment. In December 2000, Mitchell fired Springer and Springer withdrew from the case. In January 2001, Mitchell filed pro se a motion for default that Springer had drafted and successfully obtained a default judgment against the Cunninghams.
On count III, the referee recommended that Springer be found guilty of violating rule 4-1.1 (competence); rule 4-1.3 (diligence); rule 4-1.4(a) (communication); rule 4-8.4(a) (a lawyer shall not violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct); and rule 4-8.4(e) (dishonest conduct).
COUNT IV
In January 2000, Howard Mitchell hired Springer to pursue a breach of contract claim arising from the failure of Randy Baron and Jennifer Wall to pay Mitchell for construction work on their home. In February 2000, Springer filed a claim of lien, but the defendants filed a motion to dismiss because the complaint failed to allege certain elements of an oral contract. The court gave Mitchell fifteen days to respond. Springer failed to respond, and the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss.
Over the next several months, Springer told Mitchell he was filing papers and scheduling hearings to reinstate the case, which he did not do. In October 2000, Springer filed a new complaint. Baron and Wall counterclaimed. Springer failed to answer the counterclaim, and the court entered a default judgment against Mitchell. In December 2000, Mitchell fired Springer, and Springer withdrew from the case.
On count IV, the referee recommended that Springer be found guilty of violating rule 4-1.1 (competence); rale 4-1.3 (diligence); and rule 4-1.4(a) (communication).
COUNT V
In November 1997, Howard Mitchell hired Springer to file a lien against C & D Printing for failure to pay Mitchell for construction work. Over the next several months, Springer did nothing substantive on the case but told Mitchell that he had filed a complaint and that a hearing was scheduled. In August 1999, Mitchell learned of Springer's negligence in this and other cases, and Springer signed a letter admitting his negligence and promising diligence in the future.
In September 1999, Springer filed a complaint but misnamed C & D Printing as "Cee & Dee Printing." In February 2000, the clerk of court issued a notice of intent to dismiss for failure to obtain service. In May 2000, Springer lied to Mitchell, saying he had obtained a judgment and was attempting to enforce collection. In October 2000, Springer filed an amended complaint and C & D Printing filed a motion to dismiss. In January 2001, Mitchell fired Springer and Springer withdrew from the case.
On count V, the referee recommended that Springer be found guilty of violating rule 4-1.1 (competence); rule 4-1.3 (diligence); rule 4-1.4(a) (communication); and rule 4-8.4(c) (dishonest conduct).
COUNT VI
In 1998 Camelot filed a lien against timeshare unit owner Richard Baserap for failure to pay maintenance fees and taxes. In November 1998, Baserap filed suit against Camelot alleging illegal lockout and challenging the amount of the lien. Springer timely filed an answer and affirmative defenses for Camelot but then failed to comply with a court order regarding discovery. The court entered a judgment of liability in favor of Baserap. Springer settled the case for $18,000 without Camelot's consent. He paid the $18,000 from his own funds and told Camelot about the settlement after the fact.
On count VI, the referee recommended that Springer be found guilty of violating rule 4-1.2(a) (a lawyer shall abide by a client's decision whether to make or accept an offer of settlement of a matter); rule 4-1.3 (diligence); and rule 4-1.4(a) (communication).
RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE
At the disciplinary hearing, the Bar sought to have Springer suspended from the practice of law for two years followed by a two-year probationary period and a mandatory review of his practice by the Law Office Management Assistance Service of the Florida Bar (LOMAS), as well as payment of the Bar's costs. In his final report, the referee recommended that Springer be disbarred from the practice of law and be required to pay the Bar's costs. The referee found in aggravation that Springer had committed multiple offenses and demonstrated a pattern of misconduct. The referee stated that Springer's multiple incidents of incompetent action followed by lies, then more lies to cover up the deceit, demonstrated "a defect, if not an absolute absence, of honesty, integrity, and ethical judgment." In mitigation, the referee found that Springer had a cooperative attitude during the proceedings and showed remorse. In evaluating the mitigating factors, the referee found that Springer's cooperation and remorse did not "rise to the level of a valid basis to outweigh the harm of Respondent's actions." The referee concluded that Springer "has not and cannot meet" the Bar's standards of professional and ethical responsibility, and "thus is not qualified to practice law and represent members of the public."
ANALYSIS
Neither party contests the referee's findings of fact or recommendations as to guilt. Therefore, we approve the referee's findings of fact and recommendations of guilt without further discussion. Springer challenges the referee's recommended discipline, arguing that a one-year suspension rather than disbarment is the appropriate sanction. The Bar counters that disbarment is appropriate.
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 Florida 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 Florida Bar v. Temmer, 753 So.2d 555, 558 (Fla.1999).
We agree with the Bar and find the referee's recommended discipline to be reasonably supported by existing standards and case law. See Fla. Stds. Imposing Law. Sanes. 4.41 (disbarment appropriate when a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services or engages in a pattern of neglect of client matters, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client); 4.51 (disbarment appropriate when a lawyer's course of conduct demonstrates that the lawyer does not understand the most fundamental legal doctrines or procedures, and the lawyer's conduct causes injury or potential injury to a client); and 5.11(f) (disbarment appropriate when a lawyer engages in intentional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice); see also Florida Bar v. Nesmith, 707 So.2d 331, 333 (Fla.1998) (stating that this Court deals more harshly with cumulative misconduct than it does with isolated acts); Florida Bar v. Benton, 157 So.2d 420 (Fla.1963) (imposing a two-year suspension on an attorney who was hired to obtain a divorce for a client, failed to file suit, but told the client his divorce was final and gave the client a falsified divorce decree). In light of the multiple instances of misconduct involved and the nature of the misconduct in this case, we approve the referee's recommendation that Springer be disbarred.
CONCLUSION
Arthur James Springer is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Florida without leave to apply for readmission for five years. The disbarment will be effective thirty days from the fifing of this opinion so that Springer can close out his practice and protect the interests of existing clients. If Springer 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 disbarment effective immediately. Springer shall accept no new business from the date this opinion is filed until he is readmitted to the practice of law in Florida. We also enter judgment against Springer in favor of The Florida Bar, 651 East Jefferson Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300, for costs in the amount of $3,313.12, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and WELLS, PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.
LEWIS, J., concurs with an opinion, in which BELL, J., concurs.