The Florida Bar v. Lechtner, 83720
Decision Date | 18 January 1996 |
Docket Number | No. 83720,83720 |
Citation | 666 So.2d 892 |
Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly S37 THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Nancy Margaret LECHTNER, Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director and John T. Berry, Staff Counsel, Tallahassee; and Arlene K. Sankel, Bar Counsel, Miami, for Complainant.
Nancy Margaret Lechtner, North Miami Beach, pro se, and Stephen Mechanic, Miami, for Respondent.
We have for review the complaint of The Florida Bar and the referee's report recommending that Nancy Margaret Lechtner be found guilty of misconduct and disbarred without permission to reapply to The Florida Bar for ten years. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, Sec. 15, Fla. Const.
Nancy Margaret Lechtner was a defendant in a federal criminal case involving allegations of bribery to judges in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in exchange for court appointments. 1 Lechtner was found guilty of six counts of criminal activity, including one count of racketeering, 2 one count of bribery, 3 and four counts of mail fraud. 4 Consequently, Lechtner was sentenced to a prison term of thirty months. Upon the filing of notice of the felony conviction, this Court suspended Lechtner from the practice of law pursuant to Rule Regulating The Florida Bar 3-7.2. Florida Bar v. Lechtner, 637 So.2d 238 (Fla.1994). Based on her conviction of these felonies, The Florida Bar filed this complaint against Lechtner. See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 3-7.2(i)(1), (2).
After a hearing on the complaint, the referee recommended that Lechtner be found guilty of violating the following Rules Regulating the Florida Bar: Rule 4-3.5(a) ( ); Rule 4-8.4(a) (violating the Rules of Professional Conduct); Rule 4-8.4(b) ( ); Rule 4-8.4(c) ( ); Rule 4-8.4(d) ( ); Rule 4-8.4(f) ( ); and Rule 3-4.3 ( ). The referee also found several aggravating circumstances present including dishonest and selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, and actions tending to undermine the public's confidence in the judicial system. In light of these findings, the referee recommended that Lechtner be disbarred from the practice of law for ten years.
The Bar filed an affidavit of costs, claiming $1,086.48 be taxed against Lechtner. These costs, all authorized by the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, were for investigative costs, court reporters' fees, and administrative costs. See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 3-7.6(o)(1)(A), (B), and (I). Even though the referee found the costs reasonable, the referee declined to assess the costs against Lechtner because of Lechtner's inability to pay.
The Bar seeks a limited review of the referee's findings, contesting the referee's refusal to assess costs against Lechtner. The Bar claims that since all of the allegations against Lechtner were either proved or stipulated to and all of the costs incurred were reasonable, the referee's failure to assess costs against Lechtner was an abuse of discretion. Lechtner counters by arguing that the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar afford the referee discretion in deciding whether to assess costs against the losing party and no abuse of discretion has been shown to warrant a reversal of the referee's decision.
While not challenged in this Court, at the outset we note that we approve the referee's findings of fact and determinations of guilt. See R. Regulating Florida Bar 3-7.7(a)(2). Based on a review of the record, the referee's findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Florida Bar v. MacMillan, 600 So.2d 457 (Fla.1992). Additionally, we approve the referee's recommendation as to discipline. The sanction resulting from a Bar disciplinary action must serve three purposes: the sanction must be fair to society; the sanction must be fair to the attorney; and the sanction must be severe enough to deter other attorneys from similar misconduct. See Florida Bar v. Lawless, 640 So.2d 1098 (Fla.1994). We find that disbarment without permission to reapply for ten years will further the purposes of a disciplinary action. See Florida Bar v. Davis, 657 So.2d 1135 (Fla.1995) ( ); Florida Bar v. Swickle, 589 So.2d 901 (Fla.1991) ( ); Florida Bar v. Rendina, 583 So.2d 314 (Fla.1991) ( ). Accordingly, we approve the referee's findings of fact, determinations of guilt, and recommended discipline.
Next we turn to the contested issue: whether it was an abuse of discretion for the referee to refuse to assess costs against Lechtner. When making a report after a disciplinary proceeding, the referee must include a statement of costs incurred and recommendations as to how the costs should be assessed. R. Regulating Fla. Bar 3-7.6(k)(1)(E). The Rules Regulating the Florida Bar give the referee the discretion to recommend an award of costs, and absent an abuse of discretion, the referee's determination will be affirmed. See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 3-7.6(o)(2); Florida Bar v. Carr, 574 So.2d 59 (Fla.1990). The rules do provide the referee some guidance in making a determination of whether to assess costs. For instance, Rule 3-7.6(o)(3) states:
Assessment of Bar Costs. When the bar is successful, in whole or in part, the referee may assess the bar's costs against the respondent unless it is shown that the costs of the bar were unnecessary, excessive or improperly authenticated.
See also Rule 3-7.6(o)(4) ("Assessment of Respondent's Costs ").
In this case, the Bar submitted an affidavit of costs, including costs for administration, court reporters, and an investigator. These costs are all included as...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Higgins v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.
... ... Nos. SC01-291, SC01-292 ... Supreme Court of Florida ... September 30, 2004 ... Rehearing Denied January 31, 2005 ... 894 ... ...
-
Fla. Bar v. Alters
...authority to assess costs in Bar proceedings. See Fla. Bar re Dunagan , 775 So.2d 959, 962 (Fla. 2000) (citing Fla. Bar v. Lechtner , 666 So.2d 892, 894 (Fla. 1996) ). The Court, as a matter of policy, may levy against a respondent the costs incurred by the Bar in prosecuting the misconduct......
-
The Florida Bar v. Weisser, 87035.
...would be excessive in light of that sanction being imposed in other cases involving more egregious misconduct. In Florida Bar v. Lechtner, 666 So.2d 892, 894 (Fla.1996), this Court disbarred an attorney without leave to apply for readmission for ten years where the attorney had been convict......
-
The Florida Bar v. Martinez-Genova
...of discipline also be charged to the respondent. This Court has final discretionary authority to award costs. Fla. Bar v. Lechtner, 666 So.2d 892 (Fla.1996); Fla. Bar v. Bosse, 609 So.2d 1320 (Fla.1992). In Lechtner, this Court [G]enerally, when there is a finding that an attorney has been ......
-
§12.3 RPC 8.4: Misconduct
...2011). 79.State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Erickson, 29 P.3d 550, 552 (Okla. 2001). 80.Id. at 554. 81.See, e.g., Fla. Bar v. Lechtner, 666 So.2d 892 (Fla. 1996) (lawyer disbarred for bribing judges); Fla. Bar v. Davis, 657 So.2d 1135 (Fla. 1995) (lawyer disbarred for judicial corruption whi......
-
Table of Cases
...Fla. Bar v. Davis, 657 So.2d 1135 (Fla. 1995): 12–15 n.81 Fla. Bar v. Kelner, 670 So.2d 62 (Fla. 1996): 8–16 n.131 Fla. Bar v. Lechtner, 666 So.2d 892 (Fla. 1996): 12–15 n.81 Fla. Bar v. Rubin, 549 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 1989): 13–10 n.54 Fla. Bar v. Schaub, 618 So.2d 202 (Fla. 1993): 8–16 n.131 ......
-
Changes to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.
...Rental, Inc. v. O'Brien, 618 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1993); Dixie Ins. Co. v. Beaudette, 474 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 1985). [7] 666 So. 2d at 892. [8] FLA. R. App. P [9] Compare Ins. Co. of North America u. Querns, 562 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1990) (allowing such an appeal), with......