Opinion ID: 1702504
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Count VIII: Representation of Ingraham

Text: The respondent filed a complaint on behalf of Ingraham and her son against the Dade County School Board in October 1985. The complaint was dismissed for lack of prosecution and the respondent failed to notify either Ingraham or her son. The respondent filed amended complaints, some of which were dismissed. On July 9, 1987, the respondent took voluntary dismissals against two of the defendants without consulting with either Ingraham or her son. On August 26, 1987, the respondent filed a notice of voluntary dismissal dismissing Ingraham without ever discussing the action with her clients. The referee found the respondent guilty of violating Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of a legal matter) of the former Code of Professional Responsibility, and Rules Regulating The Florida Bar 4-1.4(a) (a lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter), 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 representation). The referee recommended that the respondent receive a public reprimand, be suspended for the practice of law for a period of ninety days with automatic reinstatement. In addition, the referee recommended that the respondent be on probation for a period of two years. The Florida Bar seeks disbarment on the authority of The Florida Bar v. Mavrides, 442 So.2d 220 (Fla. 1983), where we found that the cumulative effect of an attorney's misconduct demonstrated an unfitness to practice law, and thus warranted disbarment. We agree with The Florida Bar that the respondent's misconduct warrants a tougher discipline than the referee's recommended ninety-day suspension. We find that this case rises to the level of disbarment. In determining the appropriate discipline, we are guided by the Florida Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (Fla.Bar Bd. Governors 1992), and case law. Standard 3.0 states in pertinent part that in determining an appropriate sanction a court should consider the duty violated, the lawyer's mental state, the potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct; and the existence of aggravating and mitigating factors. Florida Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 3.0. We find that the respondent's numerous ethical violations resulted in three broad violations of duties as set out by the standards: 1) violations of duties owed to clients, 4.1 (failure to preserve the client's property) and 4.4 (lack of diligence); 2) violation of duties owed to the public, 5.1 (failure to maintain personal integrity); and 3) violation of duties owed to a legal system, 6.1 (false statements, fraud, and misrepresentation). Florida Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions. In addition to the respondent's violation of her duties, we have considered the three other factors outlined in standard 3.0 of the Florida Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions. First, there is little evidence of the respondent's mental state at the time of the offenses. However, the record does show that concerning the trust account violations the respondent understood the wrongful nature of her actions at the time of the offense. Second, we note that the respondent's lack of diligence in both the Cochran and Ingraham case had the potential of causing great harm. In the past, this Court has suspended attorneys who have been found guilty of a lack of diligence in representing a client. See The Fla. Bar v. Coutant, 569 So.2d 442 (Fla. 1990) (where this Court suspended an attorney for thirty days because the attorney failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, and failed to keep the client informed about the status of the case or comply promptly with the client's reasonable requests for information); see also The Fla. Bar v. Griggs, 522 So.2d 24 (Fla. 1988) (where this Court suspended an attorney for forty-five days with a two-year probationary period because the attorney failed to act with reasonable diligence in representing clients in a mortgage foreclosure and other actions, with repeated misstatements to clients regarding the status of the case). Similarly, the respondent's trust account violations had the potential for causing her clients harm, and are viewed as serious transgressions by this Court. See The Fla. Bar v. Tunsil, 503 So.2d 1230, 1231 (Fla. 1986). Finally, we weigh the aggravating facts and mitigating factors developed in the record. Applying standard 9.22 of Florida Standards of Imposing Lawyer Sanctions we find the following aggravating factors: 1) multiple offenses; 2) dishonest motive; 3) prior disciplinary offenses; 4) submission of false statements or deceptive statements during the disciplinary process and 5) vulnerability of victims. In particular, we find the respondent's false and misleading statement to the Eleventh Circuit's Grievance Committee concerning whether she had mortgaged the property in question or received money from the property to be a serious aggravating factor. The respondent's subsequent explanation that her answer was in the context of a question concerning an earlier mortgage application on the same property is incredulous. The record shows that a month before she appeared before the Eleventh Circuit's Grievance Committee, the respondent had in fact mortgaged and received money from the property. This Court has suspended attorneys found guilty of lying. See The Fla. Bar v. Neely, 372 So.2d 89, 94 (Fla. 1979) (where this Court suspended an attorney for ninety days because the attorney lied under oath, either at a grievance committee or referee's hearing or both, in an effort to hide the fact that the attorney had taken advantage of his clients for personal gain); see also The Fla. Bar v. Poplack, 599 So.2d 116 (Fla. 1992) (where this Court suspended an attorney for thirty days followed by an eighteen-month probation because the attorney lied to a police officer during a criminal investigation). Dishonesty and a lack of candor cannot be tolerated in a profession built upon trust and respect for the law. In determining the mitigating factors, we note that respondent's counsel failed to develop any of the mitigating factors found in standard 9.3. In fact, the only mitigating factor shown in the record is that the respondent is a sole practitioner and may be considered inexperienced in the practice of law. These mitigating factors are outweighed by the significant and aggravating factors as well as the cumulative misconduct found in the instant case. As we stated in The Florida Bar v. Bern, 425 So.2d 526, 528 (Fla. 1982), this Court deals more harshly with cumulative misconduct than it does with isolated misconduct. Thus, the respondent should be dealt with more harshly for her cumulative misconduct. As we have stated in the past: [D]isbarment is the extreme measure of discipline and should be resorted to only in cases where the lawyer demonstrates an attitude or course of conduct wholly inconsistent with approved professional standards. The Fla. Bar v. Pahules, 233 So.2d 130, 131 (Fla. 1970) (quoting State ex rel. The Fla. Bar v. Murrell, 74 So.2d 221, 223 (Fla. 1954)). We find that Williams' cumulative misconduct demonstrates an attitude and course of conduct that is inconsistent with Florida's standards for professional conduct, and thus, warrants disbarment. In view of the totality of the circumstances, we disbar the respondent from the practice of law effective July 27, 1992, thus allowing the respondent thirty days to close her practice and protect her client's interests. The respondent shall not accept new business after the date of this opinion. Judgment is awarded for costs in the amount of $7,655.73 against the respondent, for which sum let execution issue. It is so ordered. SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, BARKETT, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.