The Florida Bar v. Feige, SC03-151.
| Decision Date | 29 June 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. SC03-1006.,No. SC05-205.,No. SC03-1558.,No. SC04-449.,No. SC03-151.,SC03-151.,SC03-1006.,SC03-1558.,SC04-449.,SC05-205. |
| Citation | 937 So.2d 605 |
| Parties | THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Hans Charles FEIGE, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director and John Anthony Boggs, Staff Counsel, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, FL, and Frances R. Brown-Lewis, Bar Counsel, The Florida Bar, Orlando, FL, for Complainant.
Hans Charles Feige, pro se, Palm Coast, FL, for Respondent.
We have for review a referee's recommendations in five disciplinary cases regarding alleged ethical breaches by respondent Hans Charles Feige. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.
In each of the five cases, the referee found Feige guilty of numerous violations of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar (Rules) and recommended a one-year suspension. We approve the referee's factual findings with regard to guilt on all rule violations. However, we do not approve the referee's recommended discipline because we find that a one-year suspension is too lenient. Instead, we impose a three-year period of suspension in each case. As recommended in the report, these suspensions are to run concurrently. We approve the referee's recommendation that Feige be required to prove medical fitness as a condition to reinstatement. We also approve the referee's recommendation that Feige be placed on probation for two years. Finally, we approve the referee's recommendation that Feige pay the Bar's costs but disapprove the recommendation that Feige pay restitution to his clients.
After a series of hearings, the referee found that Feige committed numerous ethical violations while representing seven clients in widely varying matters that included divorce proceedings, child custody proceedings, a negligence lawsuit, and a municipal code matter. In particular, the referee found the following: Feige provided unreasonable and incompetent advice; failed to seek adequate remedies for clients; failed to conduct discovery and attend hearings; promised clients, opposing counsel, and trial courts that he would take certain actions that he never accomplished or failed to accomplish in a timely manner; failed to maintain adequate communication with clients despite numerous attempts by clients to contact him; failed to inform clients about the service of petitions, the filing of motions, and the setting of hearings; failed to clarify the scope and price of his services; failed to provide billing statements to clients after they were requested; accepted gold coins from his client as collateral for the fee without advising the client to seek advice from other counsel and without recording the terms of the transaction, including the number and value of the coins; failed to protect and account for property given to him in trust by clients; charged an excessive fee; failed to cooperate and be honest with opposing counsel; and failed to respond to the Bar's inquiries as required by the rules.
Based on this conduct, the referee found Feige guilty of violating the following rules: rule 4-1.1 (Competence); rule 4-1.2(a) (Lawyer to Abide by Client's Decisions); rule 4-1.3 (Diligence); rule 4-1.4(a) (Informing Client of Status of Representation); rule 4-1.4(b) (Duty to Explain Matters to Client); rule 4-1.5(a) (Illegal, Prohibited, or Clearly Excessive Fees and Costs); rule 4-1.5(e) (); rule 4-1.8(a) (Business Transactions With or Acquiring Interest Adverse to Client); rule 4-1.15 (Compliance with Trust Accounting Rules); rule 4-3.2 (Expediting Litigation); rule 4-8.4(c) (dishonesty); rule 4-8.4(d) (); rule 4-8.4(g)(1) (); rule 4-8.4(g)(2) (); rule 5-1.1(a)(1) (Trust Account Required; Commingling Prohibited); and rule 5-1.1(b) ().
Many of these rules were violated multiple times. For instance, rules 4-1.3 (Diligence), 4-1.4(a) (Informing Client of Status of Representation), and 4-1.4(b) (Duty to Explain Matters to Client) were violated in all five cases and with respect to all seven clients.
In deciding the appropriate discipline, the referee considered the following five aggravating factors in cases SC03-151, SC03-1006, SC03-1558, and SC04-449: (1) prior disciplinary history;1 (2) pattern of misconduct; (3) multiple offenses; (4) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding; and (5) substantial experience in the practice of law. Fla. Stds. Imposing Law. Sancs. 9.22(a), (c)-(e), (i). In case SC05-205, the referee considered the following five aggravating factors: (1) prior disciplinary history; (2) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding; (3) submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive practices during the disciplinary process;2 (4) substantial experience in the practice of law; and (5) indifference to making restitution. Fla. Stds. Imposing Law. Sancs. 9.22(a), (e)-(f), (i)-(j). In all five cases, the referee found no mitigating factors. The referee rejected Feige's health problems as mitigation because Feige had failed to note such grounds in response to the Bar's interrogatories regarding mitigating factors.
In each of the five cases, the referee recommended that Feige be suspended from the practice of law for one year and that the suspension run concurrently with the suspensions in the other cases.
In cases SC03-151, SC03-1006, SC03-1558, and SC04-449, the referee recommended that Feige submit to a physical examination as a condition to reinstatement. The referee further recommended that if reinstated, Feige should be placed on probation for two years. As terms of probation, the referee recommended that Feige submit to periodic physical examinations, undergo an "office procedures and record-keeping analysis," and work under the supervision of an attorney acceptable to The Florida Bar. In case SC04-449, the referee additionally recommended that Feige be required to pay a $100 monthly monitoring fee to the Bar.
In all five cases, the referee recommended that Feige be ordered to pay the Bar's costs and to make restitution by refunding all fees paid by the clients involved in these cases.
Feige petitioned for review in all five cases, arguing that the referee committed various legal and factual errors and that the recommended discipline was too harsh. The Bar petitioned for review of the referee's reports in cases SC03-151, SC03-1006, SC03-1558, and SC04-449, arguing that the referee's recommended discipline was too lenient and seeking a two-year suspension followed by a two-year probationary period.3
On January 9, 2006, this Court issued an order suspending Feige from the practice of law pending further action by this Court.
On February 24, 2006, this Court issued an order in case SC05-205, notifying Feige that his filings were not in compliance with various procedural rules and that failure to comply with the rules could result in dismissal of his petition for review in the case.4 Feige did not subsequently comply, and on April 12, 2006, this Court dismissed Feige's petition for review. Accordingly, this Court treats the referee's report in case SC05-205 as uncontested.
We approve the guilt findings in case SC05-205 without discussion because the referee's report in that case was uncontested.
In the remaining four cases, Feige contends that the referee made erroneous findings of law and fact.5 We find that all of these claims are without merit. Feige failed to show that the referee came to any incorrect conclusions of law that prejudiced his case. Feige also failed to demonstrate that the referee's findings of fact were clearly erroneous or lacking in evidentiary support. See Fla. Bar v. Wohl, 842 So.2d 811, 814 (Fla.2003). We therefore approve the referee's reports with respect to guilt in cases SC03-151, SC03-1006, SC03-1558, and SC04-449.
The Bar challenges the recommended sanction of a one-year suspension as being too lenient. The Bar seeks instead a two-year suspension. Feige, on the other hand, claims that a one-year suspension is unwarranted and too harsh. He asserts that the referee failed to take into account the health problems that he suffered during the time that he represented the clients involved in these cases.
This Court is ultimately responsible for determining the appropriate sanction imposed on an attorney in disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, we have held that a referee's recommendation for discipline receives less deference than a referee's guilt finding. Fla. Bar v. Sweeney, 730 So.2d 1269, 1272 (Fla.1998).
This Court has held that long periods of suspension can be appropriate in cases of client neglect. Fla. Bar v. Shoureas, 892 So.2d 1002, 1009 (Fla.2004) (); see also Fla. Stds. Imposing Law. Sancs. 4.42(b) ().
Our prior case law demonstrates that client neglect in combination with other violations can warrant a period of suspension longer than one year. See, e.g., Fla. Bar v. Elster, 770 So.2d 1184 (Fla.2000) (); Fla. Bar v. Knowles, 534 So.2d 1157 (Fla.1988) (); Fla. Bar...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fla. Bar v. Petersen
...found four aggravating factors and one mitigating factor. Id. at 1104. The Court imposed a three-year suspension in Florida Bar v. Feige , 937 So.2d 605 (Fla. 2006), where the attorney had engaged in sixteen different rule violations involving serious deficiencies in his representation of n......