Title: The Florida Bar v. Pearce
Citation: 356 So. 2d 317
Docket Number: 52009
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: February 23, 1978

356 So. 2d 317 (1978)
THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant,
v.
John L. PEARCE, Respondent.
No. 52009.

Supreme Court of Florida.
February 23, 1978.
*318 David G. McGunegle, Asst. Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, and Brian T. Hayes, Bar Counsel, Tallahassee, for The Florida Bar, complainant.
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary proceeding by The Florida Bar against John L. Pearce, a member of The Florida Bar, is presently before us on a complaint of The Florida Bar and report of the referee. Pursuant to Fla. Bar Integr. Rule, art. XI, Rule 11.06(9)(b), the referee's report and record were duly filed with this Court. No petition for review, pursuant to Fla. Bar Integr. Rule, art. XI, Rule 11.09(1), has been filed.
We summarize the referee's findings of fact as follows:
The referee recommends that respondent be found guilty of violation of Fla. Bar Code Prof. Resp., D.R. 1-102(A)(3)(4)(5) and Fla. Bar Integr. Rule, art. XI, Rule 11.02(3)(a). The referee further recommends that respondent receive a public reprimand. This is consistent with the discipline received by Ronald Brooks whose culpability appears to be equal to that of respondent.
Having carefully reviewed the record, we approve the findings and recommendations of the referee.
Accordingly, respondent, John L. Pearce, is hereby disciplined by public reprimand to be published in the Southern Reporter.
Costs are assessed against respondent in the amount of $1,420.89.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, C.J., and BOYD, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and KARL, JJ., concur.
ADKINS, J., dissents with an opinion.
ADKINS, Justice, dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. Respondent Pearce was not involved in the problems of Ronald Wilson Brooks and the others until they approached him concerning representation by Pearce in the event criminal charges were brought. After the findings of the coroner's jury, which exonerated everyone, Karen Tenney, "apparently unhappy over the representation by Mr. Pearce's of Mr. Rahme's ex-wife in Mr. Rahme's estate", complained to The Florida Bar stating that false testimony had been given and that Mr. Pearce "persuaded the witnesses" to testify falsely.
A perjury charge was brought and submitted to a grand jury. Pearce was compelled to attend and testify at grand jury proceedings under a subpoena issued by the State Attorney. Pearce had not been advised that the grievance committee, at the time, was investigating his conduct. By motion to abate, Pearce says that the provisions of Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1975) grant him immunity. The Bar took the position that the immunity would be applicable only to Count 5 of the complaint and this Count was dismissed. The referee improperly denied the motion to abate which was based upon the statutory immunity given Pearce.
Admittedly, the grievance procedure ended up in a "swearing match". The real culprits said in effect, "we did it, but Pearce made us do it".
One of the principals, Ronald Wilson Brooks, received a public reprimand and costs in the amount of $296.14 were taxed against him. See The Florida Bar (In re Brooks), 336 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1976).
On the other hand, Pearce, who was only indirectly involved, if at all, also received a public reprimand and costs in the amount of $1420.89 were taxed against him.
In my opinion, the charges should be dismissed.