Title: The Florida Bar v. Rita Stein
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC04-1918
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: November 17, 2005

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
______________ 
 
No. SC04-1918 
______________ 
 
 
THE FLORIDA BAR, 
Complainant, 
 
vs. 
 
RITA STEIN, 
Respondent. 
 
[November 17, 2005] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
We have for review a referee's report regarding alleged ethical breaches by 
Rita Stein.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. 
 
The referee found respondent guilty of eight violations of the Rules 
Regulating the Florida Bar and recommended the discipline of one year of 
probation.  In its petition for review, The Florida Bar challenges the recommended 
discipline and claims that a ninety-day suspension is more appropriate.  Stein 
argues that the referee’s recommended sanction is consistent with Florida case law 
and should not be disturbed, especially given her lack of a disciplinary history.  We 
 
 
- 2 -
agree with the Bar and find that a ninety-day suspension followed by one year of 
probation serves the purposes of attorney discipline. 
FACTS 
The following undisputed narrative of the facts was provided in the referee’s 
report:  
In March 2003, Samuel Fields approached Robin Leitner, her 
husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law at a restaurant.  Mr. Fields 
knew Mrs. Leitner’s mother, Irene Captain, who passed away on 
February 26, 2003, and offered to probate the estate for Mrs. Leitner 
and her sister, Michelle List.  Mr. Fields stated he was an attorney.  
Mr. Leitner inquired various times as to the cost of the probate and 
Mr. Fields stated it would depend.  Mrs. Leitner and Ms. List hired 
Mr. Fields to handle the probate.  Mr. Fields stated he would give 
Mrs. Leitner a special fee since he was a friend and neighbor to her 
mother-in-law and father-in-law.  When Mr. Fields was asked the 
amount of the fee, he stated the fee would be $895. 
Mr. Fields drafted a Petition for Administration and on April 
18, 2003, filed the petition with the Clerk of Court in Palm Beach 
County.  On April 25, 2003, the Letters of Administration were issued 
and mailed to Mrs. Leitner.  In May, 2003, Mrs. Leitner received a 
letter regarding the Letters of Administration from Mr. Fields and a 
bill on Elsen & Fields letterhead charging $1,208.25, which was more 
than the agreed upon fee of $895.  Mr. Fields’ letterhead listed New 
York and Florida Bars with his addresses in New York, New York, 
and Boca Raton, Florida. 
Mrs. Leitner was suspicious because the entire probate process 
took less than six weeks time.  Mrs. Leitner checked the New York 
and Florida Bars for a record of Samuel Fields and neither Bar had a 
record for Mr. Fields.  In fact, Mr. Fields was disbarred in New York 
in 1971 and there is no documentation he was ever readmitted.  Mrs. 
Leitner then called the Clerk of Courts for Palm Beach County and 
they told her Mr. Fields was not the attorney of record, but rather 
Respondent was the attorney of record.  Mrs. Leitner and Ms. List 
were never informed Respondent would be the attorney of record 
before the petition was filed with the court, and, in fact, when Mrs. 
 
 
- 3 -
Leitner and Ms. List signed the Petition for Administration, the law 
firm stated was Elsen & Fields and contained Mr. Fields’ address in 
Boca Raton, but a signature did not appear on the document.  Mr. 
Fields later signed Respondent’s name and placed her Florida Bar 
number on the petition.  Respondent admits after Mr. Fields drafted 
the Petition for Administration and obtained the signatures of Mrs. 
Leitner and Ms. List as petitioners, she gave Mr. Fields permission to 
sign her name on the petition making her the attorney of record with 
the court. 
Mrs. Leitner was also told by the clerk the probate was not 
complete and the judge could revoke the Letters of Administration if 
the case was not completed.  Mrs. Leitner obtained Respondent’s 
telephone number in New York from the clerk.  When contacted by 
Mrs. Leitner, Respondent stated she did not know Mrs. Leitner.  After 
Mrs. Leitner explained she was the attorney of record for her mother’s 
probate matter, she stated it must be Sam.  Mrs. Leitner explained the 
incomplete probate and a verbal altercation ensued which resulted in 
Respondent stating she was only hired to obtain the Letters of 
Administration and, if she was not paid, she would have the Letters of 
Administration revoked.  Mrs. Leitner also asked Respondent if Mr. 
Fields was an attorney and she stated he was an attorney.  Mrs. 
Leitner then called Mr. Fields to ask if he was a member of The 
Florida Bar and he stated his associate was a member.  Respondent 
was removed as attorney of record and Mrs. Leitner and Ms. List were 
forced to hire new counsel to complete the probate of the estate. 
Prior to the filing of the petition, Respondent never met or 
communicated with either Mrs. Leitner or Ms. List, she never 
discussed a fee or the parameters of the representation, she never 
executed a fee or retainer agreement, and she entered a notice of 
appearance on their behalf without their knowledge or first obtaining 
their consent.  As a matter of fact, the first communication 
Respondent had with Mrs. Leitner was by telephone after Mrs. Leitner 
discovered, through her own investigation with the courts, Respondent 
was the attorney of record and she telephoned Respondent in New 
York. 
Based on this conduct, the referee found Stein guilty of violating the 
following Rules Regulating the Florida Bar:  rule 3-4.3 (Misconduct and minor 
 
 
- 4 -
misconduct); rule 4-1.1 (Competence); rule 4-1.3 (Diligence); rule 4-1.4(a) 
(Informing Client of Status of Representation); rule 4-1.4(b) (Duty to Explain 
Matters to Client); rule 4-5.3(b)(2) (duty to directly supervise nonlawyer); rule 4-
5.3(b)(3) (responsibility for rule violations of nonlawyer); and rule 4-5.5 (assisting 
in the unlicensed practice of law). 
In deciding the appropriate discipline, the referee considered Stein’s age 
(seventy-seven years) and her date of admission to the Bar (July 9, 1980).  As 
aggravating factors, the referee considered the vulnerability of the victim and 
Stein’s substantial experience in the practice of law.  As mitigating factors, the 
referee considered the absence of a prior disciplinary record, Stein’s character and 
reputation, and Stein’s expressions of remorse.  The referee recommended a one-
year period of probation, during which Stein must obtain a passing score on the 
ethics portion of the Florida Bar Exam.  The referee specified that the probationary 
period could be terminated after six months if Stein provided evidence of her 
passing score.  The referee also recommended that Stein be responsible for 
payment of the Bar’s costs in the proceedings. 
ANALYSIS 
This Court is ultimately responsible for determining the appropriate sanction 
imposed on an attorney in disciplinary proceedings.  Consequently, we have held 
 
 
- 5 -
that a referee’s recommendation for discipline receives less deference than a 
referee’s guilt finding.  Fla. Bar v. Sweeney, 730 So. 2d 1269, 1272 (Fla. 1998). 
This Court has also held that bar disciplinary proceedings must serve the 
following three purposes:  (1) fairness to society, both in terms of protecting the 
public from unethical conduct and at the same time not denying the public the 
services of a qualified lawyer as a result of undue harshness in imposing a penalty; 
(2) fairness to the respondent, being sufficient to punish a breach of ethics and at 
the same time encourage reformation and rehabilitation; and (3) deterrence for 
others who might be prone or tempted to become involved in like violations.  Fla. 
Bar v. Pahules, 233 So. 2d 130, 132 (Fla. 1970). 
 
Based upon these criteria, we conclude that the referee’s recommended 
discipline is insufficient in view of the serious ethical breaches in this case.  Stein 
undertook the representation of the estate in the probate proceeding when she 
agreed with Fields to be the attorney of record.  While Stein testified that she did 
not know that Fields had been disbarred in New York, she admitted that she knew 
that Fields was not admitted to The Florida Bar.  By Stein’s allowing Fields to go 
forward with the representation while using her name and her Florida Bar number, 
and by Stein’s signing of a pleading, she undertook the responsibility for the 
probate but never performed any legal services for the clients.  Stein’s actions 
facilitated Fields’ unauthorized practice of law in Florida and was a fraudulent act 
 
 
- 6 -
in respect to the estate and the probate court.  Here, Stein did not fulfill her ethical 
obligations as a member of The Florida Bar. 
As the referee determined, Stein’s conduct constituted eight different 
violations of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, including assistance in the 
unlicensed practice of law, failure to supervise the work of a nonlawyer, and 
failing to act with diligence regarding client matters.  Our prior case law 
demonstrates that these violations, individually and in combination with each 
other, can warrant the sanction of suspension.  See, e.g., Fla. Bar v. Beach, 675 So. 
2d 106 (Fla. 1996) (imposing ninety-day suspension for assisting in unlicensed 
practice of law and sharing fees); Fla. Bar v. Lawless, 640 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 1994) 
(imposing ninety-day suspension for failing to act with diligence in representing 
clients and failing to ensure compliance by nonlawyer with lawyer’s professional 
obligations); Fla. Bar v. Mitchell, 569 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 1990) (imposing fifteen-day 
suspension for failing to supervise nonlawyer); Fla. Bar v. Morrison, 496 So. 2d 
820 (Fla. 1986) (imposing ten-day suspension for failing to supervise nonlawyer, 
conduct involving misrepresentation, and neglect of a client matter). 
We find that the facts of this case in particular warrant a suspension because 
Stein had absolutely no contact with the clients prior to making herself attorney of 
record; she continued to have no contact with the clients to update them on the 
status of the probate or with Fields to supervise his handling of the matter; and 
 
 
- 7 -
finally, she left the clients’ matter pending without taking any meaningful or 
significant action.  Because Florida lawyers are held responsible for the acts and 
omissions of their agents, Florida lawyers must adequately inform themselves as to 
the credentials and competence of those they authorize to perform any part of the 
representation of a client using the lawyer’s name and license.  R. Regulating Fla. 
Bar 4-5.3 (Responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants).  We find that a 
suspension of ninety days is the proper discipline for this ethical breach.  We do 
not impose more serious discipline because Stein has no prior disciplinary history 
and in view of the evidence that Stein has engaged in activities which have 
benefited the Bar and her communities. 
 
Stein is hereby suspended from the practice of law for ninety days, with 
automatic reinstatement at the end of the suspension period.  The suspension will 
become effective thirty days from the filing of this opinion so that Stein can close 
out her practice and protect the interests of existing clients.  If Stein 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.  Stein shall accept no new business from the date this 
opinion is filed until the suspension is completed.  Stein’s suspension shall be 
followed by a one-year probationary period, during which Stein shall obtain a 
passing score on the ethics portion of the Florida Bar Exam.  The probation may be 
 
 
- 8 -
terminated after six months if Stein provides evidence of her passing score.  
Judgment is entered for The Florida Bar, 651 East Jefferson Street, Tallahassee, 
Florida 32399-2300, for recovery of costs from Rita Stein in the amount of 
$1,780.11, for which sum let execution issue. 
 
It is so ordered. 
PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and 
BELL, 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, John Anthony Boggs, Staff Counsel, 
The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida, and Eric Montel Turner, Bar Counsel, The 
Florida Bar, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 
 
 
for Complainant 
 
Charles Wender, Boca Raton, Florida, 
 
 
for Respondent