Title: The Florida Bar v. Alan John Karahalis
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC96-531
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: February 22, 2001

Supreme Court of Florida
 
____________
No. SC96531
____________
THE FLORIDA BAR,
Complainant,
vs.
ALAN JOHN KARAHALIS,
Respondent.
[February 22, 2001]
PER CURIAM.
Respondent Alan John Karahalis petitions this Court to review a referee’s
report recommending that he be disbarred.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 15,
Fla. Const.
FACTS
On March 4, 1999, in In re Karahalis,706 N.E. 2d 655 (Mass. 1999), the
Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts vacated an order
imposing a two-year suspension on Karahalis and entered a judgment suspending
1  Karahalis was never charged with a criminal offense.  
-2-
Karahalis from the practice of law for four years, retroactive to October 24, 1997. 
Karahalis’s disciplinary proceeding in Massachusetts arose as a result of
Karahalis’s unlawful payment of $12,000 to a congressman for the purpose of
arranging a transfer of Karahalis’s uncle from one federal prison to another.1  
On September 16, 1999, The Florida Bar filed a complaint against Karahalis
and attached a copy of the Massachusetts judgment to the complaint.  In his
response to the complaint, Karahalis admitted that he had been suspended in
Massachusetts and that the order attached to the Bar’s complaint setting forth the
facts leading to his suspension was genuine and admissible as evidence.  The Bar
filed a motion for summary judgment.  Karahalis did not appear for the hearing on
the motion.  Instead, he filed a pleading entitled “Respondent’s Objection to
Complainant’s Motion for Summary Judgment” in which Karahalis alleged that he
had been denied due process in the Massachusetts proceeding.  Following the
hearing, the referee granted the Bar’s motion.  On February 1, 2000, a final hearing
was held.
In her report, the referee found that Karahalis did not demonstrate that he had
been denied due process in the Massachusetts disciplinary proceeding.  The referee
further determined that the Massachusetts adjudication of misconduct constituted
2  Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 3-4.6 provides: “A final adjudication in a disciplinary proceeding
by a court . . . of another jurisdiction, state or federal, that an attorney licensed to practice in that
jurisdiction is guilty of misconduct justifying disciplinary action shall be considered as conclusive proof of
such misconduct in a disciplinary proceeding under this rule.”
-3-
conclusive proof of Karahalis’s misconduct in the instant disciplinary proceeding
pursuant to Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 3-4.6.2 
The referee recommended that Karahalis be disbarred and that he be required
to pay the Bar’s costs.  In reaching this conclusion, the referee found as
aggravating factors Karahalis’s prior disciplinary history (a 1985 private reprimand
from the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, Massachusetts; a 1991 public
censure from the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, Massachusetts; and a
1992 public reprimand in Florida based upon the discipline in Massachusetts, see
Florida Bar v. Karahalis, 604 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 1992)), along with substantial
experience in the practice of law.  The referee found that the absence of a dishonest
or selfish motive and a cooperative attitude during the proceedings were mitigating
factors.  Nevertheless, the referee found that the aggravating factors outweighed the
mitigating factors and noted that “[t]he amount of money involved in this case and
the circumstances are egregious.”  
In recommending disbarment, the referee further relied on Florida Standard
for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 5.11, which provides that disbarment is appropriate
-4-
when “(b) a lawyer engages in serious criminal conduct, a necessary element of
which includes intentional interference with the administration of justice, false
swearing, misrepresentation, fraud, extortion, misappropriation, or theft; or . . . (f) a
lawyer engages in any other intentional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit,
or misrepresentation that seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to
practice.”
Neither Karahalis nor the Bar has challenged the validity of the order attached
to the Bar’s complaint, which sets forth the facts leading to Karahalis’s suspension
in Massachusetts.  Therefore, pursuant to Rule 3-4.6, we find Karahalis guilty of the
misconduct which served as the basis for the Massachusetts discipline; that is, the
payment of $12,000 to a congressman for the purpose of obtaining a transfer of
Karahalis’s uncle from one federal prison to another.  
Karahalis does, however, challenge the referee’s recommendation of
disbarment.  Karahalis argues that a four-year suspension like that imposed by the
Massachusetts court is appropriate.
ANALYSIS
In reviewing a referee’s recommendation of 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.” 
-5-
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.
Temmer, 753 So. 2d 555, 558 (Fla. 1999).  Further, when the disciplinary
proceeding is premised upon an adjudication of guilt in another state, this Court is
not bound by the discipline imposed by the sister state.  See Florida Bar v. Wilkes,
179 So. 2d 193, 197 (Fla. 1965) (“Florida, although accepting the foreign
determination of guilt, is left free to determine for itself the fitness of the accused
attorney as affected by the acts of misconduct involved.”).  We conclude that
Karahalis has not sustained his burden of demonstrating that the referee’s
recommendation of disbarment is inappropriate.  
As to attorney misconduct involving bribery, this Court has found:
[B]ribery is a particularly noxious ethical failure under the Code of
Professional Responsibility, because it not only involves a breach of
the individual attorney's public trust as a member of the legal
profession, but also represents an attempt by the offending lawyer to
induce a third party to engage in fraudulent and corrupt practices.
Such conduct strikes at the very heart of the attorney's responsibility
to the public and profession. We are, therefore, not inclined to
leniency in bribery matters, absent mitigating factors in the individual
case.
Florida Bar v. Riccardi, 264 So. 2d 5, 6 (Fla. 1972).  In cases involving bribery,
this Court has favored disbarment as a form of discipline.  See, e.g., Florida Bar v.
-6-
Lechtner, 666 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1996); Florida Bar v. Davis, 657 So. 2d 1135 (Fla.
1995); Florida Bar v. Rendina, 583 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1991); Florida Bar v. Rambo,
530 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1988); Riccardi, 264 So. 2d at 6.
In the instant case, Karahalis committed serious misconduct in paying a
United States Congressman a large sum of money for special treatment of a family
member.  While Karahalis argues that the fact he was trying to help his family
warrants less severe discipline, we do not agree.  Karahalis did not seek transfer of
his uncle to another prison because his uncle’s life was in danger.  Rather, he paid
the bribe because it was “inconvenient” for his family to visit the uncle who was
incarcerated in Florida.  Making life more convenient for family members is simply
not adequate justification for such egregious misconduct.  Our honored profession
is soiled by the conduct which has brought Karahalis to this day.  If we do not act
to cleanse the stain from our profession, we would depart from our oath and give
the citizens of this state cause for concern.  
Accordingly, Alan John Karahalis is hereby disbarred.  The disbarment shall
be effective thirty days from the filing of this opinion to provide Karahalis sufficient
time to close out his practice and protect the interests of existing clients.  If
Karahalis 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
3The facts of this case, as determined by the Massachusetts hearing committee, are that Karahalis
was approached in 1985 by Andrew and Deborah Gerakaris.  See In re Karahalis, 706 N.E.2d at 656.
Deborah Gerakaris is Congressman Mavroules's daughter.  See id. at 656 n.3.  The Gerakarises suggested
that Karahalis's uncle, who was in the federal prison system, could be moved to a more convenient location
if several thousand dollars were paid to Congressman Mavroules.  See id. at 656.  Karahalis's uncle, who
resided in Florida, had been convicted of felony drug charges and was assigned to a federal prison in
Danbury, Connecticut.  See id. at 656 n.3.  "This assignment was inconvenient because it was difficult for
the family, who lived in Florida, to visit him."
  Id. 
Karahalis raised money from his family and personally delivered $7000 to Congressman Mavroules
-7-
the disbarment effective immediately.  Karahalis shall accept no new business from
the date this opinion is filed.  Judgment is entered in favor of The Florida Bar, 650
Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, FL 32399, for costs from Alan John Karahalis in
the amount of $830.00, for which sum let execution issue. 
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
PARIENTE, J., dissents with an opinion, in which QUINCE, J., concurs.
THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DISBARMENT.
PARIENTE, J. dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the decision to disbar Alan John Karahalis.  The
actions for which this Court now disbars Karahalis occurred in Massachusetts in
1985.  The disciplinary proceedings in Massachusetts that arose from this same
misconduct resulted not in disbarment, but in a four-year suspension from the
practice of law retroactive to October 24, 1997.3  See In re Karahalis, 706 N.E. 2d
in August of 1985.  See id. at 656.  As a result of a conversation with Mavroules, Karahalis delivered an
additional $5000 to Andrew Gerakaris in September of 1985.  See id. Ultimately, Karahalis's uncle was
transferred to a minimum security facility in Florida but not because of the bribe.  See id.
-8-
655 (Mass. 1999). 
Although the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court considered an indefinite
suspension, that Court distinguished the facts of this case from other cases of
bribery.  See id. at 657.  In so doing, the Court was especially "cognizant of
mitigating factors in this case" including the fact that Karahalis "fully cooperated
with the office of the United States Attorney in the prosecution of [U.S.
Congressman Nicholas] Mavroules" and that Karahalis's "illegal actions were
motivated by his desire to help a family member, rather than for his own pecuniary
interests."  Id. at 658.  Justice Lynch elaborated on these mitigating factors in a
concurring opinion in which he found that a two-year suspension, as recommended
by the Board of Bar Overseers, was even more appropriate than the four-year
suspension:
The two-year suspension takes into consideration the deference due
the board, the recommendation of the United States Attorney, the fact
that no criminal sanctions were imposed on the respondent, that this
was more a case of extortion than bribery, that the respondent was
motivated by family loyalty rather than pecuniary gain, that ten years
elapsed from the events to the time of prosecution, and that the
impetus behind the fraudulent scheme came from Congressman
Mavroules and his family.
-9-
Id. at 658.  In addition, it appears from a review of the opinion that the
Massachusetts judiciary looks to factors similar to those employed by this Court in
evaluating the appropriateness of discipline.  See generally id. at 657-58.  
I certainly recognize that this Court is not bound to follow the discipline
imposed by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.  However, in contrast to
the proceedings in Massachusetts in which testimony was taken and evaluated, the
referee in this case made a recommendation of disbarment based solely on a cold
record.  I do not state this as a criticism, but merely as an indication of the superior
vantage point of those in Massachusetts who evaluated this case and did not
recommend disbarment. 
Consequently, I am persuaded that in this case we should follow the lead of
the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and impose a four-year suspension
rather than disbarment, especially given the facts that the misconduct occurred over
fifteen years ago in Massachusetts; that the misconduct did not result in criminal
charges; that the respondent fully cooperated with the United States Attorney in the
prosecution of Congressman Mavroules; and that the respondent was motivated by
family loyalty and not by financial gain. 
Additionally, although I fully agree that the conduct in which Karahalis
-10-
participated was reprehensible, in my opinion we should discount as an aggravating
factor Karahalis's substantial experience in the practice of law.  At the time that
these events occurred, Karahalis had been a member of The Florida Bar for only
three years.  
Accordingly, for all these reasons and given the circumstances of this case, I
find that disbarment is too harsh a punishment.  Instead, I would follow the lead of
the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and suspend Karahalis from the practice
of law for four years, which is a significant and severe sanction.   
QUINCE, J., concurs.
Original Proceeding - The Florida Bar
John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, John Anthony Boggs, Division Director,
Donald M. Spangler, Bar Counsel, and Lawrence J. Davis, Co-Bar Counsel, The
Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida,
for Complainant
Alan John Karahalis, pro se, Beverly, Massachusetts,
for Respondent