Title: The Florida Bar v. Jeffrey Brian Lathe
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC95-556
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: December 21, 2000

Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
  
____________
No. SC95556
____________
THE FLORIDA BAR,
Complainant,
vs.
JEFFREY BRIAN LATHE,
Respondent.
[November 30, 2000]
CORRECTED OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Respondent Jeffery Brian Lathe petitions this Court to review a referee’s
report recommending that he be suspended for ninety-one days as discipline for
committing ethical breaches.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.
FACTS
Lathe represented the defendants in a case entitled Florida Select Citrus, Inc.
v. Big Squeeze Corp., a Florida Corporation d/b/a Big Squeeze Juice and Michael
Fisher, individually and d/b/a Big Squeeze Juice, filed in the Circuit Court of the
-2-
Fifth Judicial Circuit, in and for Lake County, presided over by the Honorable Jerry
T. Lockett.  The plaintiff’s counsel served Lathe with a notice of deposition and an
amended notice of deposition requiring Lathe’s clients to appear for deposition on
May 28, 1998.  Neither Lathe nor his clients appeared.  
Judge Lockett assessed attorney’s fees and costs against the defendants for
the May 28 failure to appear and for failure to comply with a request for production
of documents.  Judge Lockett later vacated the amount of the fees and costs, and
elected to hold an evidentiary hearing on the amount.  He also ordered Michael
Fisher, individually and as corporate representative of Big Squeeze Corp., to
appear for a deposition on August 6, 1998.  Neither Lathe nor Fisher appeared for
the deposition.  
Judge Lockett held a hearing on this matter, at which Lathe stated that his
client’s failure to appear was Lathe’s fault because Lathe had been ordered to be in
another court proceeding on the same date.  Lathe represented that another judge’s
judicial assistant called him late in the afternoon on August 5, 1998, and told him
that he had to appear for a pretrial conference the following morning.  Lathe later
sent a letter to Judge Lockett claiming that he had been contacted by the judicial
assistant of the Honorable Judge Jeffery J. Colbath of Palm Beach County.  Judge
Lockett eventually found that Lathe’s assertions were not true and ordered Lathe to
1At the formal hearing, Lathe argued that he did not refuse to pay the award; rather, he was not
able to pay the award.  Nevertheless, he admitted that “Judge [Lockett] found otherwise.”
-3-
pay the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees in the amount of $7,225.40.  The Fifth District
Court of Appeal affirmed the award of attorney’s fees.  See Lathe v. Florida Citrus
Select, Inc., 721 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).  Lathe failed to pay the sanction
until Judge Lockett held him in contempt of court and ordered his incarceration.1
On May 12, 1999, the Bar filed its complaint against Lathe attaching copies
of (1) Lathe’s letter to Judge Lockett; (2) an affidavit by Judge Colbath stating that
neither he nor his assistant contacted Lathe to attend a pretrial conference; and (3)
the district court’s affirmance.  The Bar contended that Judge Colbath’s affidavit
demonstrated that Lathe had made false statements to Judge Lockett.  In his
answer, Lathe denied the allegation that he was not contacted by Judge Colbath’s
judicial assistant, but admitted that the purpose of the contact was not to direct
Lathe’s appearance in court the next morning.
In his final report, the referee recommended that Lathe be found guilty of
violating rule 3-4.3 (prohibiting the commission by a lawyer of any act that is
unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice); rule 4-3.3(a)(1) (providing that a
lawyer shall not make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal); rule 4-
8.4(c) (providing that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty,
-4-
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation); and rule 4-8.4(d) (providing that a lawyer
should not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice) of
the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar.
As to discipline, the referee recommended that Lathe be suspended for
ninety-one days, thereby requiring him to show rehabilitation prior to his
reinstatement, and awarded the Bar its costs.  In recommending this discipline, the
referee found that Lathe “must be made to realize that ‘honesty and candor in
dealing with others is part of the foundation upon which respect for the profession
is based.’”  The referee further looked to Florida Standard for Imposing Lawyer
Sanctions 6.12 which provides that “[s]uspension is appropriate when a lawyer
knows that false statements or documents are being submitted to the court or that
material information is improperly being withheld, and takes no remedial action.” 
The referee agreed with the trial judge’s finding that Lathe “engaged in intentional
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation and demonstrated
utmost disrespect for the Court.”  The referee found that Lathe’s
misrepresentations to Judge Lockett were “destructive to the legal system as a
whole” and that his actions “also resulted in extraordinary time and expense to his
adversary.”
The referee found that Lathe’s substantial experience in the practice of law
-5-
and his indifference to making restitution “as evidenced by [Judge Lockett’s]
findings that respondent wilfully and intentionally refused to comply with the Order
of October 6, 1998, and that [Lathe] obstructed justice by his willful and dilatory
tactics” constituted aggravating factors, and that Lathe’s absence of a prior
disciplinary record was a mitigating factor.  The referee concluded that Lathe’s
wilful misrepresentations (the first verbal, and the second in writing), warranted
more severe discipline than a public reprimand or a short-term suspension. 
Lathe has petitioned for the Court to review the referee’s report. 
ANALYSIS 
At the outset we note that Lathe does not challenge the referee’s findings of
fact regarding the charged misconduct in this case or the referee’s conclusions as
to guilt.  Lathe does, however, challenge the referee’s recommendation of a ninety-
one-day suspension as excessive. 
In reviewing a referee’s recommended discipline, this Court’s scope of
review is “somewhat broader than that afforded to findings of facts because,
ultimately, it is [the Court’s] responsibility to order an appropriate punishment.” 
Florida Bar v. Anderson, 538 So. 2d 852, 854 (Fla. 1989).  However, generally
speaking this Court "will not second-guess a referee's recommended discipline as
long as that discipline has a reasonable basis in existing caselaw."  Florida Bar v.
-6-
Temmer, 753 So. 2d 555, 558 (Fla. 1999). 
In the instant case, based upon unchallenged factual findings, it is apparent
that Lathe intentionally misrepresented to a judge on two separate occasions that he
was unable to attend a deposition because another judge had ordered him to attend
a pretrial conference.  When the judge awarded attorney’s costs to the opposing
party as a sanction, Lathe refused to comply with the order and pay the costs until
the judge ordered his incarceration.  On these facts, we conclude that the referee’s
recommendation of a ninety-one-day suspension has a reasonable basis in existing
caselaw.  
In recent years, this Court has repeatedly imposed ninety-one-day
suspensions upon attorneys who have made intentional misrepresentations to a
court.  See Florida Bar v. Cibula, 725 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 1998) (attorney testified
falsely under oath on two occasions; no mitigation found by referee); Florida Bar v.
Schramm, 668 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1996) (attorney made false statements to court in
motion for disqualification and motion for continuance, in addition to neglecting
duty to client); Florida Bar v. Norvell, 685 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 1996) (attorney with
disciplinary history filed false affidavit stating that he was a disinterested person in a
lawsuit); Florida Bar v. Fischer, 549 So 2d 1368 (Fla. 1989) (attorney had legal
secretary pose as a court clerk and inform police officer who wrote speeding ticket
-7-
that court hearing had been canceled).  Indeed, there have been other instances in
which intentional misrepresentations led to even more severe discipline by this
Court.  See, e.g., Florida Bar v. Colclough, 561 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 1990) (attorney
with no prior disciplinary history suspended for six months for misrepresenting to
judge and opposing counsel that a hearing on costs had already been held); Florida
Bar v. Merwin, 636 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 1994) (attorney disbarred for falsely testifying
under oath that his failures to appear were due to the fact that his client had lost
interest in the case and moved to California).  
Even though Lathe has no
disciplinary history, we conclude that a suspension which requires a demonstration
of rehabilitation is warranted in the instant case.  At an evidentiary hearing on
attorney’s fees, the following dialogue occurred between Lathe and Judge Lockett:
Judge:  This Defendant has already been
sanctioned by this Court for not coming to a deposition
and fees will be awarded in some amount; and now here
we are with the second deposition set and scheduled by
Court Order, not set by opposing counsel, scheduled by
Court Order and we don’t attend that one either.  That
becomes disturbing and I want to know exactly why
we’re not attending
Lathe:  Yes, sir.
Judge:  And I tell you this in the greatest respect, I
intend to contact that Judge’s office and confirm what
you told me, all right? 
I’m not saying I don’t believe you.  I do believe
you.  You’re an officer of the court, I should believe
you–
2In its opinion affirming the award of attorney’s fees, the district court stated of Lathe’s conduct
that “[i]t takes chutzpah to admit to lying to a court and yet still seek review of an order imposing
sanctions.”  Lathe, 721 So. 2d at 1247. 
-8-
Lathe:  Yes, sir.
Judge:  – but [woe] be it to you if it isn’t so.  All
right.
Thus, Judge Lockett expressly informed Lathe that he would contact Judge
Colbath’s office.  Nevertheless, Lathe still maintained the truth of his
misrepresentation to the court by sending a letter to Judge Lockett reasserting that
he had been contacted by Judge Colbath’s assistant.  Lathe’s misrepresentations to
Judge Lockett are further exacerbated by the fact that Lathe failed to comply with
the sanctions imposed by the judge for Lathe’s lack of candor.  Even after the
district court affirmed the sanction order entered against Lathe, he still failed to
comply until Judge Lockett ordered his incarceration.  Such refusal to follow an
order despite an admitted lack of candor demonstrates a blatant lack of respect for
the court on Lathe’s part.2   
Attorneys who make misrepresentations to a court create “an erosion of
confidence on the part of the judiciary and the public in lawyers’ honesty.”  Florida
Bar v. Corbin, 701 So. 2d 334, 336 (Fla. 1997).  This Court has found that “[t]here
is no more serious impact upon the integrity of our judicial system.”  Id.  We
reaffirm this assertion today.  Lathe’s blatant misconduct poses a serious threat to
-9-
the integrity of the justice system, and cannot be dealt with lightly.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we find Lathe guilty of violating Rules Regulating the Florida
Bar 3-4.3, 4-3.3(a)(1), 4-8.4(c), and 4-8.4(d).  Jeffery Brian Lathe is hereby
suspended from the practice of law in Florida for ninety-one days.  The suspension
will be effective thirty days from the filing of this opinion so that Lathe can close
out his practice and protect the interests of existing clients.  If Lathe 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 suspension
effective immediately.  Lathe shall accept no new business from the date this
opinion is filed.  Judgment is entered for The Florida Bar, 650 Apalachee Parkway,
Tallahassee, Florida 32399, for recovery of costs from Lathe in the amount of
$1,477.20, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and
QUINCE, JJ., concur.
THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SUSPENSION.
Original Proceeding - The Florida Bar
-10-
John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, John Anthony Boggs, Division Director,
Tallahassee, Florida; and Ronna Friedman Young, Bar Counsel, Ft. Lauderdale,
Florida,
       for Complainant
Jeffrey B. Lathe, pro se, West Palm Beach, Florida,
       for Respondent