Case Name: In re JQC No. 84-200 Inquiry Concerning a Judge, Judge Jack BLOCK
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1986-10-16
Citations: 496 So. 2d 133
Docket Number: No. 67298
Parties: In re JQC No. 84-200 Inquiry Concerning a Judge, Judge Jack BLOCK.
Judges: McDonald, C.J., and ADKINS, OVER-TON, EHRLICH, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 496
Pages: 133–135

Head Matter:
In re JQC No. 84-200 Inquiry Concerning a Judge, Judge Jack BLOCK.
No. 67298.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Oct. 16, 1986.
Kathleen T. Phillips, Chairman, Florida Judicial Qualifications Com’n, Pensacola, John S. Rawls, General Counsel, Tallahassee, Joseph J. Reiter of Lytal and Reiter, and Jack Scarola, Sp. Counsel, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
Robert L. Floyd of Floyd, Pearson, Rich-man, Greer, Weil, Zack & Brumbaugh, P.A., Miami, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This proceeding is before us to review a report of the Judicial Qualifications Commission which found that respondent had violated various Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility at a point in time when he was a practicing attorney. We have jurisdiction, article V, section 12, Florida Constitution. We approve the Commission's findings and agree with its recommendation that respondent appear before this Court to receive a public reprimand.
The Commission charged respondent with five counts of misconduct; the Commission found respondent guilty of Counts I and II and not guilty of Counts III and V. Count IV was dismissed by the Commission.
Count I involved conduct occurring between 1982 and 1984 while respondent was a practicing attorney in Dade County. The facts as found by the Commission indicate that respondent shared legal fees with Milton Wassman, who was a suspended attorney at the time. The Commission further found that respondent shared fees on a percentage basis with his then secretary, Linda Tillman, who was not a lawyer. The Commission found these actions were agreements to split or divide fees with persons who are not lawyers. Respondent has admitted that these acts were violations of Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(1), (2) and (6); DR 2-103(B), (C) and (E); and DR 3-102 and DR 3-104 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Count II alleged that respondent, in 1982 and 1983, placed wagers and bets with "bookies" in violation of Florida criminal statutes. The Commission based its finding of guilt on the testimony of two of respondent's former secretaries and various registered mail return receipts. Respondent testified that he placed bets only with friends who, for years, had family going to the track every day. The Commission found this testimony to be "incredible" and concluded that respondent's conduct violated Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A), (1), (3), (4), (5) and (6),
Count III involved the willful and false reporting of a campaign contribution during respondent's 1982 race for Mayor of the City of South Miami. The Commission found that this charge was not proven by clear and convincing evidence and thus found respondent not guilty of this count. Count V charged respondent with falsifying the purchase price of real property and depriving the state of documentary stamp revenue. Although the Commission found that this charge was not proven by clear and convincing evidence, it concluded that the transaction at issue showed that respondent "knows very little about the Code of Professional Responsibility."
We approve the Commission's findings and recommendation of discipline. Accordingly, we hold that respondent will appear before this Court, at a date to be set by the Court, to receive a public reprimand.
It is so ordered.
McDonald, C.J., and ADKINS, OVER-TON, EHRLICH, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur.
BOYD, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion.