The Florida Bar v. Headley, 65580
| Decision Date | 29 August 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 65580,65580 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 489 THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Thomas W. HEADLEY, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director and John T. Berry, Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, and Patricia S. Etkin, Bar Counsel, Miami, for complainant.
Thomas W. Headley, in pro. per., Miami, for respondent.
This disciplinary proceeding is before us on the complaint of The Florida Bar and the report of referee. Pursuant to article XI, Rule 11.06(9)(b), of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, the referee's report and record were duly filed with this Court. The Florida Bar now seeks review of the report of referee.
The facts in the case are not in dispute. On October 1, 1980, Respondent was duly suspended from the practice of law for failure to pay his annual bar dues. During 1980, 1981, 1982, and 1983, respondent received official notification from The Florida Bar as to his suspension and as to his delinquency. Despite these notices, respondent did not file a petition for reinstatement to membership in The Florida Bar until October 28, 1983. On November 10, 1983, respondent was reinstated to the practice of law by the Board of Governors. Respondent has been suspended for nonpayment of bar dues for fiscal year 1984-1985 and no petition for reinstatement has, thus far, been filed by respondent.
Respondent admits that he has been engaged in the practice of law since his suspension for nonpayment of dues. As a result, respondent does not contest the referee's finding of guilt with respect to violations of Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility D.R. 3-101(B) and article II, section 2 and article VIII, section 2 of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar.
The Florida Bar petitions the Court to suspend respondent from the practice of law for a period of three months and one day. We decline to do so due to the mitigating factors noted in the referee's report and recommendation. First and foremost among the mitigating circumstances is the fact that there have been no instances of bad conduct by respondent as a practicing attorney. He has not been cited for contempt of court nor has he adversely affected the rights or neglected the interest of a client. Also, respondent now acknowledges that he is an alcoholic and has been actively engaged in Alcoholics Anonymous in an attempt to put his life back together.
The Bar contends that we should not consider alcoholism as a mitigating circumstance since it occurred after the wrongful conduct. See State ex rel. v. Hogsten, 127 So.2d 668 (Fla.1961) (). However, we accept the referee's finding that Mr. Headley's failure to pay bar dues was a direct result of his being an alcoholic. This finding was based upon the testimony of a member of The Florida Bar, a reformed alcoholic, who has had daily contact with respondent since August 14, 1984. The referee correctly characterized this witness as an expert in the area of alcoholic attorneys and placed great weight upon his testimony.
We do not feel as though the discipline recommended by the complainant is best suited in this case. As we noted in The Florida Bar v. Larkin, 420 So.2d 1080 (Fla.1982), in those cases where alcoholism is the underlying cause of professional misconduct and the individual attorney is willing to cooperate in seeking alcoholism rehabilitation, we should take these...
To continue reading
Request your trial