Opinion ID: 1894342
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: recommendations as to guilt and discipline

Text: Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the referee recommended that Cimbler be found guilty of the following rule violations: as to count I, Rules Regulating the Florida Bar 1-3.3 (stating that [e]ach member shall promptly notify the executive director of any changes in mailing address and business telephone) and 4-1.3 (A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.); as to count II, rules 1-3.3, 4-1.4(a) (A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.), and 4-1.4(b) (A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.); and as to count III, rules 4-1.3, 4-1.4(a), 4-1.4(b), and 4-1.16(a)(2) ([A] lawyer shall ... withdraw from the representation of a client if ... (2) the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent the client....). As to discipline, the referee concluded that the presumptively appropriate sanction was suspension under Florida Standard for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 4.4 (Lack of Diligence), which provides: 4.42 Suspension is appropriate when: (a) a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and causes injury or potential injury to a client, or (b) a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect and causes injury or potential injury to a client. The referee found that the evidence presented at the hearing did not establish, in certain instances, clear and convincing proof of willful, intentional conduct. Therefore, the referee concluded that Cimbler's negligent handling of the three (3) matters in question either occurred due to simple communication lapses, errors in calendaring legal hearings, or possibly failures to attend hearings which were duly noticed, yet not communicated to [Cimbler] by staff or opposing counsel. The referee further found that although Cimbler's lack of diligence and failure to communicate with his clients created a situation ripe for malfeasance, several facts showed a set of procedural mistakes not entirely attributable to Cimbler. In aggravation, the referee found that Cimbler (1) had a prior discipline in 1994 based on similar findings of emotional problems and mental health impairments, resulting in a ninety-day suspension and three years' probation, see Florida Bar v. Cimbler, 659 So.2d 1089 (Fla.1995) (unpublished order); (2) had committed multiple offenses; and (3) had shown indifference in making restitution to Dominguez. See Fla. Stds. Imposing Law. Sancs. 9.22(a), (d), (j). In mitigation, the referee found that Cimbler (1) made a timely good faith effort to make restitution or to rectify the consequences of his misconduct; [1] (2) made full and free disclosure or had a cooperative attitude during the proceedings; (3) had good character or reputation; (4) had physical or mental disabilities or impairment; (5) had demonstrated interim rehabilitation; and (6) had shown remorse. See Fla. Stds. Imposing Law. Sancs. 9.32(d), (e), (g)-(h), (j), ( l ). The referee recommended that Cimbler be suspended from the practice of law for ninety days and be required to pay the Bar's costs. The referee further recommended that Cimbler be placed on probation for five years following reinstatement and that during this time, at his own expense, Cimbler should be supervised by an attorney acceptable to The Florida Bar, monitored by FLA, Inc., and required to submit annually to an independent psychiatric evaluation performed by a licensed psychiatrist chosen by the Bar. In addition, the referee recommended that Cimbler be required to immediately enroll in The Florida Bar's Law Office Management Assistance Service (LOMAS) and maintain enrollment during the probationary period, or as deemed necessary by the executive director of LOMAS. Last, the referee recommended that Cimbler be required to remit $8000 to Dominguez as restitution for any outstanding debts arising from the liens placed on Dominguez's property. In making this recommendation, the referee focused on the significant mitigating factors and concluded that Cimbler perceives and recognizes the future consequences if he fails to conduct himself with professionalism to practice in the future, and knows that indeed this may truly be his last opportunity. The Bar seeks review of the referee's recommended discipline, arguing that a ninety-day suspension is inappropriate due to the similar and repetitive nature of Cimbler's misconduct in this case. Specifically, the Bar argues that the facts of this case warrant a three-year suspension.