Opinion ID: 1689304
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: New York's Different Standard of Proof

Text: Mogil next argues that the clear and convincing evidence standard that applies in Florida disciplinary proceedings was not met (and the referee's report therefore should be rejected) because the referee's factual findings are based entirely on the New York proceedings, which apply the lower evidentiary standard of preponderance of the evidence. As urged by the Bar, we have already rejected this argument in a strikingly similar case. Specifically, in Friedman, as in the present case, the referee under rule 3-4.6 ultimately recommended discipline in Florida based on disciplinary action taken in New York. See 646 So.2d at 189-90. However, in Friedman, [d]espite his ultimate recommendation, the referee expressed concern as to whether Florida should accept a foreign jurisdiction's adjudication of guilt when that finding is premised on a preponderance of the evidence standard since the standard in Florida is clear and convincing evidence. Id. at 190. This Court dismissed this concern, holding: Lawyer discipline standards are designed to guide the disciplinary body to impose sanctions consistent with clear and convincing evidence that a member of the legal profession has violated a provision of the Rules ... (or applicable standard under the laws of the jurisdiction where the proceeding is brought). Fla. Stds. Imposing Law. Sancs. 1.3. By the use of the words or applicable standard under the laws of the jurisdiction where the proceeding is brought, this standard recognizes that foreign jurisdictions may employ standards different than those employed in our disciplinary proceedings. The plain language of rule 3-4.6 provides that when an attorney is found guilty in a foreign jurisdiction of misconduct, it shall be considered as conclusive proof of such misconduct in a disciplinary proceeding under this rule. Friedman, 646 So.2d at 190. This Court in Friedman also reject[ed] [the subject attorney's] claim that his discipline should be minor because of the alleged discrepancies in proof of the New York order. Id. Thus, under Friedman, a foreign jurisdiction's different standard of proof in this context is inconsequential as to both guilt and discipline. We accordingly reject Mogil's argument to the contrary.