The Fla. Bar v. Irish
| Decision Date | 04 November 2010 |
| Docket Number | Nos. SC08-1375, SC08-1552, SC08-1891, SC08-2398.,s. SC08-1375, SC08-1552, SC08-1891, SC08-2398. |
| Citation | 48 So.3d 767 |
| Parties | THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Philip David IRISH, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
John F. Harkness, Executive Director, Kenneth Lawrence Marvin, Staff Counsel, and Randi Klayman Lazarus, Bar Counsel, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida, for Complainant.
Richard B. Marx of the Law Offices of Richard B. Marx, Miami, Florida, for Respondent.
We have for review a referee's report recommending that Philip David Irish be found guilty of professional misconduct and disbarred effective, nunc pro tunc, October 8, 2008. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. We approve the referee's findings of fact, recommendations of guilt, and recommended sanction.
The Florida Bar filed a Notice of Determination or Judgment of Guilt demonstrating that Respondent was guilty of six felony charges. On October 8, 2008, the Court issued an order suspending Respondent, pursuant to Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 3-7.2 (Procedures Upon Criminal or Professional Misconduct).
Thereafter, a referee was appointed to consider Respondent's disciplinary conduct. Before the referee, the parties submitted a joint stipulation agreeing to the facts and several rule violations in the four consolidated disciplinary cases. Afterholding a hearing, the referee submitted a report for the Court's review, in which the referee made the following findings and recommendations for the four consolidated cases.
Case No. SC08-1891. In July 2008, in State v. Irish, No. 05019059CF10A (Fla. 17th Cir.Ct. July 15, 2008), Respondent was adjudicated guilty of six felony charges, which included (1) trafficking in gamma butyrolactone (GHB); (2) two counts of possession of a controlled substance without a prescription; (3) possession of cocaine; (4) possession, sale, or delivery of methenolone; and (5) possession, sale, or delivery of mesterolone. He was sentenced to thirty months' incarceration in a Florida State prison with a credit of 120 days time served. Based upon Respondent's misconduct and the six felonies, the referee recommended that Respondent be found guilty of violating Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 4-8.4(b) ().
Count I. Mr. Rodriguez had retained Respondent to represent him in five lawsuits. In June 2007, Mr. Rodriguez discovered that Respondent had abandoned his cases after vacating his office. Respondent had missed scheduled court dates, hearings, and a deposition. Mr. Rodriguez's efforts to communicate with Respondent were unsuccessful. In addition, Respondent failed to return case files.
Based on this conduct, the parties stipulated that Respondent is guilty of violating Rules Regulating the Florida Bar 3-4.2 (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct is a cause for discipline); 3-4.3 (the commission by a lawyer of an act that is unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice, whether the act is committed in the course of the attorney's relations as an attorney or otherwise, whether committed within or outside the state of Florida and whether or not the act is a felony or misdemeanor, may constitute a cause for discipline); 4-1.1 (a lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client, which requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation); 4-1.3 (a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client); 4-1.4(a) (); 4-1.4(b) (); 4-1.5(a)(1) (); 4-3.2 (a lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client); and 4-8.4(c) ().
Count II. Mr. Mallor retained Respondent for a civil matter. Mr. Mallor's efforts to contact Respondent and determine the progress of the case were unsuccessful. Respondent failed to file appropriate pleadings and neglected the case. Forthis count, the parties stipulated that Respondent is guilty of violating the same rules as set forth in Count I.
Count III. In June 2007, Mr. Ermovick retained and paid Respondent $1000 to represent him as plaintiff in a civil matter. Although Respondent alleged that he sent a demand letter, the defendant never received the letter.
In October 2007, Respondent advised Mr. Ermovick that a lawsuit would be filed. However, Respondent took no action to litigate the matter and failed to represent Mr. Ermovick.
For this count, the parties stipulated that Respondent is guilty of violating the same rules as set forth in Count I.
Count I. Mr. Smith hired and paid Respondent $1000 to handle a judgment that had been entered against him. Respondent advised Mr. Smith that he had one year to reverse the judgment before any garnishment action could be taken. After returning from a trip that lasted several months, Mr. Smith discovered that his bank account had been garnished without his knowledge. Mr. Smith's attempts to contact Respondent were unsuccessful.
Mr. Smith filed a complaint against Respondent with The Florida Bar. The Bar sent letters to Respondent, dated February 21, 2008, and March 12, 2008 (the latter sent by certified mail), requiring an explanation. Respondent failed to reply to these letters.
The parties stipulated that Respondent is guilty of violating rules 3-4.2 (); 3-4.3 (the commission by a lawyer of an act that is unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice, whether the act is committed in the course of the attorney's relations as an attorney or otherwise, whether committed within or outside the State of Florida and whether or not the act is a felony or misdemeanor, may constitute a cause for discipline); 4-1.1 (a lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client, which requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation); 4-1.3 (a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client); 4-1.4(a) (); 4-1.4(b) (); 4-1.5(a)(1) (); 4-8.1(b) (); and 4-8.4(g) ().
Count II. In December 2006, Mr. Forbes hired Respondent to represent him in immigration matters. Mr. Forbes paid Respondent $1000. After February 2007, Mr. Forbes was unable to contact Respondent despite several attempts.
Mr. Forbes filed a complaint against Respondent with The Florida Bar. By letters dated November 5, 2007, and November 26, 2007 (the latter was sent by certified mail), the Bar required an explanation from Respondent. He failed to reply to the letters.
Based on this conduct, the parties stipulated that Respondent is guilty of violating the same rule violations as those set forth under Count I of this case.
Case No. SC08-1552. Count I. In March 2007, Mr. Mogulyan retained Respondent and paid him $900 to handle a landlord-tenant security deposit matter and to file an answer. A former tenant had filed the suit against Mr. Mogulyan seeking the return of a security deposit. Respondent failed to research the legal issues properly and he waited over a month to file his appearance. Also, Respondent did not file an answer to the lawsuit, file any affirmative defenses or counterclaim, and did not appear at a hearing on plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. As a result, Mr. Mogulyan had a final judgment entered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fla. Bar v. Johnson
...as long as it has a reasonable basis in existing case law and the Florida Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions.Fla. Bar v. Irish, 48 So.3d 767, 774 (Fla.2010) (citations omitted). The referee recommended that Johnson be suspended for six months, nunc pro tunc, to the effective date of th......
- Fla. Bar v. Johnson, SC11-1136