Title: The Florida Bar v. Inglis
Citation: 660 So. 2d 697
Docket Number: 80262, 81222, 83325
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: September 21, 1995

660 So. 2d 697 (1995)
THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant,
v.
Charles K. INGLIS, Respondent.
Nos. 80262, 81222 and 83325.

Supreme Court of Florida.
September 21, 1995.
*698 John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director and John T. Berry, Staff Counsel, Tallahassee; and Susan V. Bloemendaal, Assistant Staff Counsel, Tampa, for Complainant.
David A. Maney and Lorena L. Kiely of Maney, Damsker, Harris &amp; Jones, P.A., Tampa, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
We have for review the complaint of The Florida Bar and the referee's report regarding three separate incidents involving alleged ethical breaches by Charles K. Inglis. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.
The first complaint arose from an altercation between Inglis and a process server named Arnold Goldfoot. On this matter, the report of the referee is supported by competent substantial evidence and is therefore binding upon this Court. We adopt it in full. The relevant findings state:
In the second case, the report of the referee likewise is supported by competent substantial evidence and is adopted in full by the Court. The relevant findings state:
In the third case against Inglis, the referee's report also is supported by competent substantial evidence and is adopted by this Court. The report states:
As to the first complaint, the referee found that Inglis had violated Rules of Professional Conduct 3-4.3, 3-4.4, 4-8.4(a), 4-8.4(b), 4-8.4(c), and 4-8.4(d). As to discipline, the referee recommended a ninety-one-day suspension with proof of rehabilitation required prior to reinstatement, plus payment of costs to The Florida Bar in the amount of $3,641.97.
As to the second complaint, the referee found that Inglis had violated Rule of Professional Conduct 4-1.1. The referee further recommended that Inglis be publicly reprimanded by publication of the decision imposing discipline, and by appearance before the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar for administration of the reprimand. Likewise, the referee recommended that Inglis be required to pay reasonable costs in the sum of $1,104.65 to The Florida Bar.
In the third complaint, the referee found an additional violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 4-1.1 and recommended a second public reprimand. On costs, the referee recommended that Inglis be required to pay $3,732.99 to The Florida Bar.
The Florida Bar disputes the recommendation as to discipline. Instead of a ninety-one-day suspension and two reprimands, the Bar asks that we disbar Inglis on grounds of cumulative misconduct. On this question we first note that the Florida Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 9.22(c &amp; d) state that discipline may be increased based on multiple offenses or a pattern of misconduct, which is evident here. Likewise, Standard 8.1(b) provides that disbarment is appropriate when an attorney previously has been suspended[1] and later intentionally engages in similar misconduct, which also is evident here. We further note that the referees in these cases could not have considered cumulative misconduct in the three cases because no basis for such a finding could exist until *701 this Court takes action, as it does today. Moreover, this case is aggravated by a referee's finding that Inglis lied under oath.
We therefore agree that cumulative misconduct exists that, combined with the aggravating circumstances, reflects ethical breaches of the most serious order warranting harsh discipline. Accordingly, Charles K. Inglis is hereby disbarred effective thirty days from the filing of this opinion so that Inglis can close out his practice and protect the interests of any existing clients. If Inglis 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. Inglis shall accept no new business from the date this opinion is published. Costs in the amount of $8,479.61 hereby are awarded in favor of The Florida Bar and against Inglis, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
GRIMES, C.J., and SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING and WELLS, JJ., concur.
ANSTEAD, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion.
OVERTON, J., recused.
THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DISBARMENT.
ANSTEAD, Justice, concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority opinion in all respects except that, on balance, I believe a suspension for three years would be the appropriate sanction.
[1]  Inglis previously was suspended for eighteen months.