Opinion ID: 1733896
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the due process challenge

Text: Kandekore next argues that he was denied due process because he was not allowed to present evidence at the hearing challenging the fairness of the proceedings in New York. He also argues that he was denied due process because he was not given the opportunity to present evidence in support of mitigation. See, e.g., Florida Bar v. Carricarte, 733 So.2d 975, 979 (Fla. 1999) ([D]ue process requires that the attorney be permitted to explain the circumstances of the alleged offense and to offer testimony in mitigation of any penalty to be imposed.); Pavlick, 504 So.2d at 1234 (Due process ... requires that the accused lawyer shall be given full opportunity to explain the circumstances and otherwise offer testimony in excuse or in mitigation of the penalty.). However, contrary to Kandekore's claims, a properly noticed hearing in this case was held on July 26, 1996. At this hearing, Kandekore could have, and should have, presented mitigating evidence and challenged the fairness of the disciplinary proceedings in New York. Instead of doing so, he requested a continuance. Kandekore's erroneous belief that the Bar was supposed to provide the referee with all of the facts at the hearing does not elevate the referee's refusal to grant a continuance to a denial of due process. Rule Regulating The Florida Bar 3-7.6(b) expressly states that proceedings before a referee are adversarial and rule 3-4.1 charges every member of the Bar with notice of the Rules of Discipline. Therefore, Kandekore should have known that the Bar would not present both sides of his case at the hearing. Because Kandekore had the opportunity to present evidence, but in effect waived it by arriving at the hearing unprepared, we conclude that Kandekore was not denied due process.