Case Name: THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. David PASCOE, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1988-06-23
Citations: 526 So. 2d 912
Docket Number: No. 70336
Parties: THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. David PASCOE, Respondent.
Judges: McDonald, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH and GRIMES, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 526
Pages: 912–916

Head Matter:
THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. David PASCOE, Respondent.
No. 70336.
Supreme Court of Florida.
June 23, 1988.
John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, John T. Berry, Staff Counsel and Susan V. Bloemendaal, Asst. Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, for complainant.
David Pascoe, Fort Walton Beach, in pro. per.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This case is a disciplinary proceeding brought by The Florida Bar against attorney David Pascoe. The referee found the respondent guilty of four counts of violation of certain Integration Rules of The Florida Bar and Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Florida Bar seeks review of the referee's report, claiming it is too lenient, and the respondent seeks review, claiming it is too severe.
The referee found (1) that the respondent placed an advertisement relating to divorce in a Fort Walton Beach newspaper that The Florida Bar found ethically improper, the respondent withdrawing the ad when he was so notified; (2) that respondent was arrested and pled nolo contendere to the misdemeanor possession of less than twenty grams of marijuana that came about by smoking the drug with friends in a social atmosphere; (3) that respondent made comments concerning a federal court action that were interpreted as improper criticism of the court, for which the respondent later apologized; (4) that respondent did not timely handle an appeal of a criminal matter for which he was court-appointed counsel.
The referee found respondent guilty of violating the following Disciplinary and Integration Rules: Count One: Disciplinary Rule 2-101(C)(5) (use of a form of public communication which appeals primarily to a layperson's desire for revenge or spite) and 2-101(C)(6) (use of a form of public communication which is intended or is likely to attract clients by use of showmanship and hucksterism, including the use of garish and sensational language); Count Two: Integration Rules 11.02(3)(a) (commission of acts contrary to good morals) and Rule 11.02(3)(b) (public commission of illegal acts); Count Three: Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude); Disciplinary Rule 7-106(C)(l) (alluding to other matters that the attorney had no reasonable basis to believe were relevant to the case and would not be supported by admissible evidence while appearing in his professional capacity before a tribunal) and Disciplinary Rule 7-106(C)(6) (engaging in undignified or discourteous conduct while appearing in a professional capacity before a tribunal) and Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(2) (handling a legal matter without adequate preparation); and Count Four: Disciplinary Rules 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him by failing to file required pleadings and brief at the required times and by failing to acquaint himself with the rules of appellate procedure), 7-106(C)(6) (engaging in discourteous and undignified conduct which is degrading to a tribunal and disregarding the rules of appellate procedure), and 7-106(C)(7) (intentionally and habitually disregarding the rules of appellate procedure).
The referee recommended that the respondent receive a public reprimand and be placed on probation for the period of eighteen months. Further, the referee suggested the terms of the probation require respondent to take and pass the ethics portion of the Florida Bar examination, and to pay all costs associated with these grievance proceedings.
Mr. Pascoe contends that his conduct constitutes examples of only "minor misconduct" and, as a result, the recommended sanction of a public reprimand is overly severe. The Florida Bar, on the other hand, maintains that, although each violation would probably merit only a public reprimand, collectively they merit at least a ninety-one day suspension, together with court costs and a requirement that Pascoe be required to successfully complete the professional ethics portion of the bar examination within eighteen months of the imposed sanctions.
We approve the referee's findings of fact and his recommended discipline except we increase the probationary period from eighteen months to three years. In doing so, we note that the drug offense is somewhat different from other matters this Court has recently considered in that there was no evidence that the respondent had brought the marijuana to the occasion or had any in his possession other than what he was actually smoking. The Bar recognizes this would be a reprimand offense if it were not coupled with the other matters. In accordance with the referee's recommendation, respondent is further required to take and pass the ethics portion of The Florida Bar examination prior to his satisfactory completion of his probation.
The costs of this proceeding are taxed against the respondent. Judgment for costs is entered against David Pascoe in the amount of $1,590.15, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
McDonald, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH and GRIMES, JJ., concur.
BARKETT, J., concurs specially with an opinion, in which SHAW and KOGAN, JJ., concur.