Title: The Florida Bar v. Kirkpatrick
Citation: 567 So. 2d 1377
Docket Number: 74051
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: October 4, 1990

567 So. 2d 1377 (1990)
THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant,
v.
John E. KIRKPATRICK, Respondent.
No. 74051.

Supreme Court of Florida.
October 4, 1990.
John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, and John T. Berry, Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, and Randi Klayman Lazarus, Bar Counsel, Miami, for complainant.
Gregory P. Borgognoni of Tew, Jorden &amp; Schulte, Miami, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary proceeding is before the Court on complaint from The Florida Bar. The Florida Bar and the respondent, John E. Kirkpatrick, have petitioned this Court to review the referee's report in which the referee recommended that the respondent be privately reprimanded. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.
The referee made the following findings of fact:
The referee found that respondent violated rule 4-8.4(d) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice) and rule 4-3.4(c) (a lawyer shall not knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.
In his brief to this Court, the respondent disputes the referee's conclusion that he violated the rules of professional conduct. Our review of the record shows the referee's findings of fact to be supported by competent, substantial evidence and we therefore approve them. The Fla. Bar v. McKenzie, 557 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 1990). We also conclude that these findings of fact support the referee's recommendation that respondent be found guilty of the alleged rule violations. As the referee noted in his report:
(Emphasis in original.) We agree with the referee's recommendation of guilt.
Next, we turn to the referee's recommendation of a private reprimand for the conduct at issue. After reviewing the *1379 record and the referee's report, we agree with the Bar that a public reprimand is the appropriate discipline in this case. In The Florida Bar v. Welty, 382 So. 2d 1220, 1223 (Fla. 1980), we pointed out that:
(Citations omitted; emphasis added.) A private reprimand is the appropriate disciplinary sanction when the misconduct can be categorized as minor misconduct. See rule 3-5.1(b), Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. In other words, a private reprimand is the appropriate sanction only for the most insignificant of offenses.
In the present case, the referee found, in sum, that respondent was arrested, failed to appear in court on several occasions causing the issuance of three bench warrants and did not complete his probationary obligations until just prior to the final hearing before the referee. The gravity of respondent's conduct is greater than that traditionally warranting only a private reprimand. As the referee noted in his report, "Mr. Kirkpatrick's indifference of the legal system began with his encounter with the police officer at the time of his arrest, and continued with his disobeyance of Judge Klein." Such insouciance by an officer of the court to the very system which he has sworn to uphold warrants no less than a public reprimand under the present circumstances.
Kirkpatrick is to appear before the board of governors of The Florida Bar at a time set by the board for the administering of the reprimand. Judgment for costs in the amount of $1,127.00 is entered in favor of The Florida Bar, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, EHRLICH, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.