Title: The Florida Bar v. Wayne A. Hagendorf
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC04-859
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: January 26, 2006

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC04-859 
____________ 
 
THE FLORIDA BAR,  
Complainant, 
 
vs. 
 
WAYNE A. HAGENDORF,  
Respondent. 
 
[February 2, 2006] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
Wayne A. Hagendorf seeks review of a referee’s report recommending that 
he be suspended for two years.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.  
For the reasons expressed below, we approve the referee’s report and suspend 
Hagendorf for two years as recommended.    
BACKGROUND 
 
Hagendorf is a member of the bars of Florida, California, Nevada, New 
York, and the District of Columbia.  The Florida Bar instituted disciplinary 
proceedings against Hagendorf after he advised the Bar that he had been 
disciplined for misconduct by the Nevada Bar pursuant to a plea agreement.  
Hagendorf advised the Bar that he had been suspended for two months, but that 
 
 
- 2 -
“the circumstances underlying my suspension in Nevada were extremely unique.”  
He stated he was “confident that the underlying facts would undoubtedly not have 
led to a suspension in this State under this State’s ethical and disciplinary rules.”    
He described his misconduct and the resulting disciplinary suspension as follows: 
“[T]he circumstances . . . were extremely unique and isolated to one specific 
matter which ultimately degenerated into multiple civil disputes among the parties 
and lawyers, bar pressure by opposing counsel who, coincidentally, is a Member of 
the State Bar of Nevada’s Board of Governors, monetary payoffs (disguised as 
‘restitution’) to opposing parties, etc.”   
 
Following a formal hearing, the Florida referee made the following findings 
and recommendations: 
 
Hagendorf leased office space from Mr. Dennis Duban, who owned an 
office building in Las Vegas.  Hagendorf moved out of his office after a dispute 
arose over the terms of his lease and brought suit against Duban.  During the 
litigation, Hagendorf learned the title to the office building in which he had leased 
space was recorded in the name of Duban Professional Building, a California 
limited partnership, which did not actually exist.  Duban had registered the name 
Jenni Office Plaza d/b/a Duban Professional Building in California, but failed to 
renew the registration. 
 
 
- 3 -
 
Hagendorf created a California limited partnership called Duban 
Professional Building and named himself as the general partner.  He then filed a 
quiet title action in Nevada district court for title to Duban’s office building, 
asserting that his newly created partnership owned it.  His legal theories of 
entitlement to the building –– claim jumping and contingent estate under Nevada 
law –– were meritless.  He obtained an order for service by publication by 
misleading the district court concerning where the defendants could be found, 
although he knew Duban’s counsel’s name and address.  Hagendorf ultimately 
obtained a default decree quieting title to the building and declaring his partnership 
the rightful owner.  Hagendorf then sent letters to the property management 
company that managed the building and all of the building’s tenants instructing 
them to submit payment of all future rents to his partnership.  No rents were 
actually paid to Hagendorf’s partnership.  Duban, once he learned of the default 
decree, successfully moved to set it aside and asserted several counterclaims 
against Hagendorf.  The Nevada court imposed sanctions against Hagendorf under 
Nevada’s Rule of Civil Procedure 11 for engaging in frivolous litigation. 
 
Duban filed a complaint with the Nevada Bar, which proceeded with a 
formal disciplinary complaint against Hagendorf.  Hagendorf unsuccessfully 
moved to stay the disciplinary proceedings until the litigation between him and 
 
 
- 4 -
Duban concluded.  He then filed suit in federal court in California against the 
Nevada Bar.  That suit was eventually dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.  
 
After a few continuances, Hagendorf filed a federal suit against the Nevada 
Bar in Nevada, which was eventually dismissed for lack of subject matter 
jurisdiction.  Shortly before the new date of the formal hearing, Hagendorf retained 
new counsel, who asked for and received a continuance so that he could adequately 
prepare. 
 
Thereafter, Hagendorf entered into a negotiated plea agreement with the 
Nevada Bar.  He pled guilty to violating Nevada Supreme Court Rules 172 (candor 
toward the tribunal), 175 (relations with opposing counsel), 181 (truthfulness in 
statements to others), 203(3) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or 
misrepresentation), and 203(4) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of 
justice).  Under the agreement, Hagendorf was to (1) be suspended for five months, 
all but sixty days of which was stayed; (2) pay Duban $25,000 by September 11, 
2003, as a partial reimbursement for attorney’s fees;1and (3) pay the Nevada Bar’s 
costs up to $1,000.  The Nevada Supreme Court approved the negotiated plea 
agreement, suspending Hagendorf for five months, all but sixty days of which was 
stayed. 
                                          
 
 
1  Hagendorf was potentially liable to Duban for approximately $150,000 in 
attorney’s fees at the time of the global settlement of the civil litigation and the 
Nevada Bar disciplinary proceeding. 
 
 
- 5 -
Based on these facts, the Florida referee found Hagendorf guilty of violating 
rules 4-3.3 (candor toward the tribunal), 4-3.4 (fairness to opposing party and 
counsel), 4-4.1 (truthfulness in statements to others), 4-8.4(c) (conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and 4-8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to 
the administration of justice) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar.  The referee 
further found several mitigating and aggravating factors.  The mitigating factors he 
found were: (1) absence of a prior disciplinary record; (2) full and free disclosure 
to The Florida Bar in the Florida disciplinary proceeding; and (3) imposition of 
other penalties and sanctions.  The referee found the following aggravating factors: 
(1) dishonest or selfish motive; (2) bad faith obstruction of the Nevada Bar 
disciplinary proceeding; (3) substantial experience in the practice of law; and (4) 
indifference to making restitution.  The referee recommended that the Court 
suspend Hagendorf for two years. 
 
Hagendorf petitioned for review of the referee’s report.   He argued the 
referee erred in finding the aggravating factors of bad faith obstruction of the 
Nevada Bar disciplinary proceeding and indifference and to making restitution.  He 
further argued the referee should have recommended the same discipline imposed 
by Nevada, a two-month suspension.  
 
 
 
 
- 6 -
ANALYSIS 
 
Neither of the parties challenges the referee’s findings of fact concerning the 
underlying misconduct.   We therefore approve those findings without further 
discussion. 
 
Hagendorf takes issue with the referee’s recommended discipline of a two-
year suspension, arguing the Court should impose the same discipline imposed by 
Nevada.  We disagree.  This Court is ultimately responsible for imposing the 
appropriate sanction in bar disciplinary proceedings.  Fla. Bar v. Miller, 863 So. 2d 
231, 235 (Fla. 2003); see also art. V,  ' 15, Fla. Const.  Even when the disciplinary 
proceedings are premised upon an adjudication of guilt in another state, this Court 
is free to impose a more severe punishment than the punishment imposed by the 
sister state.  Fla. Bar v. Karahalis, 780 So. 2d 27, 29 (Fla. 2001).  
Generally, the Court will not second-guess the discipline recommended by 
the referee as long as it has a reasonable basis in existing case law and the Florida 
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions.  Miller, 863 So. 2d at 235; Fla. Bar v. 
Temmer, 753 So. 2d  555, 558 (Fla. 1999); Fla. Bar v. Lecznar, 690 So. 2d 1284, 
1288 (Fla. 1997).  The two-year suspension recommended by the referee in this 
case has a reasonable basis in existing case law and the standards, even without the 
 
 
- 7 -
aggravating factors of bad faith obstruction and indifference to restitution, which 
Hagendorf argues do not apply.2   
 
The case law supports the imposition of a two-year suspension.  We have 
imposed lengthy suspensions for similar, if not identical, conduct.  Like 
Hagendorf’s case, some of these cases involved violations of rule 4-8.4(d) (conduct 
prejudicial to the administration of justice), which is a serious violation.  See, e.g., 
Fla. Bar v. Rotstein, 835 So. 2d 241, 246 (Fla. 2002) (imposing a one-year 
suspension for creating back-dated letter to his client in violation of rule 4-8.4(d), 
among others; Court noted that in recent years it has “moved towards stronger 
sanctions for attorney misconduct” and that basic, fundamental dishonesty is a 
serious flaw which cannot be tolerated); Fla. Bar v. Nunes, 734 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 
1999) (imposing a three-year suspension for filing a frivolous lawsuit, continuing 
to represent clients after being discharged, making disparaging remarks about 
judges and opposing counsel, and making false representations to a tribunal in 
violation of rule 4-8.4(d), among others); Fla. Bar v. Klausner, 721 So. 2d 720 
(Fla. 1998) (imposing a three-year suspension for forging signatures on documents 
submitted to the court and lying about the misconduct to the court and in a sworn 
statement to an investigator with the state attorney’s office in violation of rule 4-
                                          
 
 
2  The referee found two other aggravating factors: (1) selfish or dishonest 
motive; and (2) substantial experience in the practice of law.  Hagendorf does not 
challenge these findings. 
 
 
- 8 -
8.4(d), among others); Fla. Bar v. Vining, 707 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 1998) (imposing a 
three-year suspension for misrepresentations in stipulation submitted to court while 
seeking funds in court registry in violation of rules 4-8.4(c) and 4-8.4(d)); Fla. Bar 
v. Segal, 663 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1995) (imposing a three-year suspension for false 
statement in petition for discharge submitted to probate court); Fla. Bar v. 
Kleinfeld, 648 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 1994) (imposing a three-year suspension for false 
statements in affidavit seeking disqualification of judge in contempt hearing 
against attorney, a violation of rule 4-8.4(d), among others); Fla. Bar v. O’Malley, 
534 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 1988) (imposing a three-year suspension for false testimony 
in suit against attorney for return of bond collateral entrusted to him, and noting 
that disbarment would have been appropriate discipline if not for significant 
mitigating circumstances).  
 
Hagendorf’s misconduct more than warrants a two-year suspension.  Indeed, 
were it not for the fact that the Bar agreed with the referee’s recommendation, this 
Court might have disbarred him.   
CONCLUSION 
 
Wayne A. Hagendorf is hereby suspended from the practice of law for two 
years.  The two-year suspension will be effective thirty days from the filing of this 
opinion so that Hagendorf can close out his practice and protect the interests of 
existing clients.  If Hagendorf notifies this Court in writing that he is no longer 
 
 
- 9 -
practicing and does not need the thirty days to protect existing clients, this Court 
will enter an order making the suspension effective immediately.  Hagendorf shall 
accept no new business from the date this opinion is filed until he is reinstated.  
Judgment is entered for The Florida Bar, 651 East Jefferson Street, 
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300, for recovery of costs from Wayne A. Hagendorf 
in the amount of $1,420.00, 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, and 
Tiffany Renee Collins, Bar Counsel, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Complainant 
 
Richard A. Greenberg, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Respondent