The Florida Bar v. Sandstrom, 77773
| Decision Date | 29 October 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 77773,77773 |
| Citation | 609 So.2d 583 |
| Parties | 17 Fla. L. Week. S672 THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Ray SANDSTROM, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director and John T. Berry, Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, and David M. Barnovitz, Bar Counsel, Ft. Lauderdale, for complainant.
Kayo E. Morgan, Ft. Lauderdale, for respondent.
Ray Sandstrom petitions for review of the findings of fact, recommendations regarding guilt and sanctions, and statement of costs contained in a referee's report filed against him. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 15, Florida Constitution.
The Florida Bar filed a complaint against Sandstrom based upon his representation of Robert Arner in a criminal prosecution. Arner was convicted of the first-degree murder of his wife, but the conviction was subsequently set aside by the trial court based upon Arner's motion to vacate filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The motion to vacate was predicated upon allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel because Sandstrom failed to properly investigate and present evidence that would have established that the wife's death was attributable to medical malpractice rather than the actions of Arner. The trial court's order also outlined other failures in Sandstrom's representation of Arner. The Florida Bar charged Sandstrom with violating Disciplinary Rules 6-101(A)(2) () and 6-101(A)(3) (), of the former Code of Professional Responsibility, based upon his lack of preparation, lack of investigation, and other failures in representing Arner.
Prior to the referee's hearing, the bar placed the transcript of Arner's trial and the record of the rule 3.850 proceeding into evidence and submitted a memorandum of law with citations to the relevant portions of those records. At the hearing, the referee indicated that he had read both records. The referee heard argument from both the bar and Sandstrom as to whether the record contained evidence to support each of the allegations in the complaint. The referee's report contained the following findings relating to Sandstrom's representation of Arner: Sandstrom failed to take any pretrial depositions; failed to conduct a proper investigation as related to evidence available to establish that the proximate cause of the wife's death was medical malpractice; failed to timely challenge the admission of evidence relating to a search of Arner's car trunk; failed to discover that a fence, surrounding the scene of the alleged crime and injurious to Arner's defense, was not erected until over a year after the alleged crime; failed to present a tape recording to impeach a prosecution witness; and failed to become familiar with or know the physical evidence in the case. The referee made the following recommendations regarding guilt and sanctions:
By virtue of his lack of preparation, lack of investigation and his failures recited in paragraphs A through J, inclusive of my findings of fact, respondent violated Disciplinary Rules 6-101(A)(2) and 6-101(A)(3) of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provide that a lawyer shall not handle a legal matter without preparation adequate in the circumstances and shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.
....
I recommend that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year.
The referee also recommended that the costs of the proceeding be taxed against Sandstrom, including the cost of copying the records of the murder trial and the rule 3.850 hearing.
Sandstrom disputes the referee's findings of fact and alleges that the copy costs assessed against him are excessive. In support of these arguments, Sandstrom cites specific references in both the trial record and the record of the 3.850 hearing. Sandstrom also cites Hallman v. State, 371 So.2d 482 (Fla.1979), abrogated on other grounds by Jones v. State, 591 So.2d 911 (Fla.1991), to support his contention that Arner could not avoid criminal liability for the wife's head injuries even if medical malpractice were established as the proximate cause of death. Thus, Sandstrom contends, there was no prejudice to Arner on this point.
In disciplinary proceedings, the referee's findings should be accorded substantial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wolfram, Matter of
...professional discipline. This rule apparently represents the uniform rule followed by other courts. See, e.g., Florida State Bar v. Sandstrom, 609 So.2d 583, 584 n. 1 (Fla.1992) (noting that most cases of ineffective assistance of counsel do not rise to the level of a disciplinary violation......
-
The Florida Bar v. Robinson, s. 82886
...we have imposed suspension rather than a public reprimand. See, e.g., Florida Bar v. Witt, 626 So.2d 1358 (Fla.1993); Florida Bar v. Sandstrom, 609 So.2d 583 (Fla.1992); Florida Bar v. Vernell, 374 So.2d 473 (Fla.1979). In light of the mitigating circumstances and the carefully crafted disc......
-
The Florida Bar v. Rose
...As mentioned here, the instant disciplinary action arose from representation rendered in a criminal case. In Florida Bar v. Sandstrom, 609 So.2d 583, 584 n. 1 (Fla.1992), this Court noted that "most cases of ineffective assistance of counsel do not rise to the level of a disciplinary violat......