Title: The Florida Bar v. Broida
Citation: 574 So. 2d 83
Docket Number: 74378, 74825
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: January 3, 1991

574 So. 2d 83 (1991)
THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant,
v.
Edith BROIDA, Respondent.
Nos. 74378, 74825.

Supreme Court of Florida.
January 3, 1991.
Rehearing Denied February 28, 1991.
*84 John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, and John T. Berry, Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, Warren Jay Stamm, Bar Counsel, and Jacquelyn P. Needelman, Co-Bar Counsel, Miami, for complainant.
Edith Broida, Miami Beach, in pro. per.
PER CURIAM.
We have for review a referee's report which recommends that Edith Broida, a member of The Florida Bar, be suspended for violating numerous rules governing professional conduct. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 15, Florida Constitution, and approve the referee's report and adopt his recommendations.
The bar filed two complaints against Broida. She responded to the first (case no. 74,378) and participated in a referee's hearing on that complaint, but ignored the second (case no. 74,825). The referee made the following findings of fact:
Based on these findings, the referee found that Broida had violated the following Rules Regulating The Florida Bar: 4-1.1 (competence), 4-1.3 (diligence), 4-3.3 (candor toward a tribunal), 4-3.4(d) (making a frivolous discovery request or intentionally failing to comply with opposing party's proper discovery request), 4-3.5 (compromising the integrity and decorum of a tribunal), 4-4.1 (truthfulness in statements to others), 4-8.2(a) (making statements known to be false or with reckless disregard of the truth concerning a judge's qualifications or integrity), 4-8.4(a) (violating rules of conduct), 4-8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), *87 and 4-8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). The referee recommends a one-year suspension from the practice of law.
"A referee's findings of fact are presumed correct and will be upheld unless clearly erroneous and lacking in evidentiary support." The Florida Bar v. Neely, 502 So. 2d 1237, 1238 (Fla. 1987). Our review of the record discloses competent, substantial evidence supporting the referee's findings, and we hereby approve them. We also agree with the referee that a one-year suspension is warranted. As the referee stated in commenting on Broida's "continuing pattern and course of conduct in engaging in ex parte communications with the courts":
We agree.
Therefore, we hereby suspend Edith Broida from the practice of law for a period of one year from the date this opinion is filed.[*] We also enjoin her from practicing law until she is reinstated in The Florida Bar. Costs in the amount of $4,055.42 are hereby entered against Broida, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, EHRLICH, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
[*]  Because Broida was automatically suspended in 1989 for nonpayment of dues and failure to comply with the continuing legal education requirements, we assume that she is not practicing and that she has complied with the requirements of rule 3-5.1(h), Rules Regulating Fla. Bar. Thus, we see no need to defer the effective date of her suspension.