Title: The Florida Bar v. Schramm
Citation: 668 So. 2d 585
Docket Number: 84493, 85243
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: February 22, 1996

668 So. 2d 585 (1996)
THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant,
v.
Robert John SCHRAMM, Respondent.
Nos. 84493, 85243.

Supreme Court of Florida.
February 22, 1996.
*586 John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director; John T. Berry, Staff Counsel and John V. McCarthy, Bar Counsel, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, for Complainant.
Baya Harrison, III, Monticello, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
We have for review the complaint of The Florida Bar (the Bar) and the referee's report regarding alleged ethical breaches by Robert Schramm. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. The two cases before the Court embrace Florida Bar Case Nos. 94-01105-03, 94-00933-03 and 94-00728-03.
The referee made the following findings of fact concerning the acts of misconduct allegedly committed by Schramm in Case No. 94-00933-03:
After making the above findings of fact, the referee made the following recommendations concerning guilt:
The referee made the following findings of fact concerning the acts of misconduct allegedly committed by Schramm in Case No. 94-00728-03:
After making the above findings of fact, the referee made the following recommendations concerning guilt:
The referee made the following findings of fact concerning the acts of misconduct allegedly committed by Schramm in Case No. 94-01105-03:
After making the above findings of fact, the referee made the following recommendations concerning guilt:
The referee recommended that the following discipline be imposed for the above violations:
Schramm admits most of the Bar's allegations against him, but contends that the referee erroneously adopted the following language from the Bar's written closing argument:
Schramm argues that there is nothing in the record to support the statement that he committed a criminal act and that no such charge was made in the Bar's original complaint. We agree. The record supports Shramm's position on this issue. Accordingly, we adopt the referee's recommendations of guilt except for the language quoted above regarding a violation of Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 4-8.4(b).
We further adopt the referee's recommendation concerning discipline in its entirety. The referee's disciplinary recommendation is justified by the findings of fact contained in the referee's report. There are multiple violations not contested by Schramm and the case law regarding the discipline imposed in analogous cases supports the referee's recommendation. See, e.g., Florida Bar v. Merwin, 636 So. 2d 717 (Fla.1994); Florida Bar v. Colclough, 561 So. 2d 1147 (Fla.1990); Florida Bar v. Grant, 514 So. 2d 1075 (Fla.1987); Florida Bar v. Oxner, 431 So. 2d 983 (Fla.1983).
Robert Schramm is hereby suspended for a period of ninety-one days and thereafter until he proves rehabilitation, pays the costs of these proceedings, and makes restitution to his client, Ms. Barbie Powell, in the amount of $180.00. The suspension will be effective thirty days from the filing of this opinion so that Schramm can close out his practice and protect the interests of existing clients. If Schramm notifies this Court in writing that he is no longer practicing law and does not need the thirty days to protect existing clients, this Court will enter an order making the suspension effective immediately. Schramm shall accept no new business from the date this opinion is filed until the suspension is completed. Pursuant to the provisions of Rule Regulating The Florida Bar 3-5.1(g), upon receipt of this order of suspension, Schramm shall forthwith furnish a copy of the order to all of his clients with matters pending in his practice. Furthermore, within thirty days after receipt of this order, Schramm shall furnish staff counsel of the Bar with a sworn affidavit listing the names and addresses of all clients who have been furnished copies of the order. Judgment for costs in the amount of $2,112.71 is entered in favor of The Florida Bar against Robert Schramm, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.