State ex rel. Farber v. Williams, 34500

• Decision Date: 23 February 1966
• Docket Number: No. 34500,34500
• Citation: 183 So.2d 537
• Parties: STATE ex rel. FARBER, Petitioner, v. Honorable Gene WILLIAMS, as one of the Judges of the Crlimnal Court of Record of Dade County, Florida, Respondent.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 537

183 So.2d 537

STATE ex rel. FARBER, Petitioner, v. Honorable Gene WILLIAMS, as one of the Judges of the Crlimnal Court of Record of Dade County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 34500.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 23, 1966.

Carr & Warren, Miami, for petitioner.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Richard E. Gerstein, Miami, for respondent.

ERVIN, Justice.

Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition from us directed to the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County to prohibit the prosecution of Petitioner therein for the alleged violation of F.S. § 877.02(1), F.S.A. The Dade County Grand Jury indicted Petitioner, alleging that the Petitioner contrary to statute did unlawfully and intentionally, directly or indirectly, solicit legal business of and from William David McDaniels and Laura McDaniels, his wife, as natural parents and natural guardians and on behalf of their son, Bert Lee McDaniels, a minor, or procure through solicitation of said William David McDaniels and Laura McDaniels, a retainer authorizing an attorney to render legal service.

The bases upon which the writ is sought are: (1) that the Dade County Grand Jury is void and unconstitutional because the statutes creating and establishing it were enacted contrary to the Florida Constitution and (2), F.S. § 877.02(1), F.S.A., the statute purporting to make it a criminal offense to solicit legal business, is unconstitutional.

The contention that the Dade County Grand Jury is without constitutional status was recently rejected by us. See State ex rel. Worthington v. Cannon, opinion filed December 8, 1965, rehearing denied January 19, 1966.

F.S. Section 877.02(1), F.S.A., reads as follows:

'(1) It shall be unlawful for any person or his agent, employee or any person acting on his behalf, to solicit or procure through solicitation either directly or indirectly legal business, or to solicit or procure through solicitation a retainer, written or oral, or any agreement authorizing an attorney to perform or render legal service, or to make it a business to solicit or procure such business, retainers or agreements; provided, however, that nothing herein shall prohibit or be applicable to banks, trust companies, lawyer reference services, legal aid associations, lay collection agencies, railroad companies, insurance companies and agencies, and real estate companies and agencies, in the conduct of their lawful businesses, and in connection therewith and incidental thereto forwarding legal matters to attorneys at law when such forwarding is authorized by the customers or clients of said businesses and is done pursuant to the canons of legal ethics as pronounced by the supreme Court of Florida.'

Petitioner contends said section is void and unconstitutional because it violates Section 12 of the Declaration of Rights of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A., and the First, Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, in that the statute is too vague, indefinite and ambiguous to sufficiently define the acts which will constitute a criminal offense; that the statute unduly inhibits the constitutionally protected rights of freedom of speech and association, and that the statute deprives Petitioner of equal protection of the laws.

Petitioner in his argument relies upon Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange County (Fla.), 368 U.S. 278, 82 S.Ct. 275, 7 L.Ed.2d 285, holding that when a statute forbids the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess as to its meaning and differ as to its application, it violated due process. He also relies upon Locklin v. Pridgeon, 158 Fla. 737, 30 So.2d 102, which holds that when a statute uses words of no determinative meaning and its language is so general and indefinite as to embrace not only acts properly and legally punishable but others which cannot be punished, it will be declared void for uncertainty. Petitioner contends that F.S. § 877.02(1), F.S.A., is so broad it prohibits a friend, acquaintance or client of an attorney from recommending him to another. He cites Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1, S.Ct. 1113, 12 L.Ed.2d 89, to the effect a labor union could not be enjoined by a state bar association from advising its injured members to obtain legal advice from specific lawyers it recommended. National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 83 S.Ct. 328, 9 L.Ed.2d 405, is cited also; it held a statute unconstitutional which made it a crime for a person to advise another that his legal rights have been infringed and refer him to a particular attorney.

Section 877.02(1) does not appear to us to be unconstitutionally vulnerable on the bases of the challenges urged by Petitioner.

The object of § 877.02(1) is to prohibit the solicitation of legal business by an attorney directly or by his agent or employee, or by another acting in his behalf. It does not prohibit the recommendation of an attorney by anyone to another where the one recommending has no relationship or privity with the attorney as the latter's agent or as his employee or other similar relationship with the attorney for the purpose of soliciting legal business for him. Thus the statute does not prohibit the recommendation of an attorney by a mere volunteer or acquaintance who has no...