The Florida Bar v. Burkich-Burrell, BURKICH-BURREL
| Citation | 659 So.2d 1082 |
| Decision Date | 07 September 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 83351,BURKICH-BURREL,R,83351 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly S453 THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Amy Leeespondent. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director and John T. Berry, Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, and Pamela Pride-Chavies, Bar Counsel, Miami, for complainant,
Amy L. Burkich-Burrell, Miami, pro se.
We have for review the complaint of The Florida Bar and the referee's report finding various ethical breaches by Amy Lee Burkich-Burrell. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, Sec. 15, Fla. Const.
The Florida Bar filed a complaint against Amy Lee Burkich-Burrell (Burkich), charging her with violating the following Rules Regulating The Florida Bar: Rule 4-3.4(a) (); Rule 4-4.1(a) & (b) () make a false statement of material fact or law to a third party; or b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a fraudulent act by a client); and Rule 4-8.4(a) & (c) () violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another or c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation). The charges resulted from Burkich's representation of her husband, William Burrell, in a law suit to recover for injuries he sustained in a 1989 automobile accident.
After a hearing, the referee made the following findings of fact. In June 1986, Burkich and her husband, William Burrell, were involved in an automobile accident with a vehicle owned by the City of Coral Gables. As a result of the accident, Burrell sustained multiple injuries, including injuries to his neck. He was treated for the injuries by three different doctors. Burrell filed suit against the city in May 1990.
In December 1989, Burrell was involved in a second automobile accident with a vehicle owned and operated by Matias Garcia. As a result of that accident, Burrell again sustained injuries, which included neck injuries. Burrell filed suit against Garcia in January 1990. Burkich represented Burrell in the second suit and also was a plaintiff in the action.
Elwood T. Lippincott, Jr., who represented Garcia, propounded interrogatories to Burrell. Interrogatory 18 requested that Burrell provide the names, business addresses and telephone numbers of all medical doctors by whom, and all hospitals at which, he had been examined and/or treated in the past five years. Interrogatory 20 requested that, if Burrell had ever been involved in an accident of any kind before or after the accident in suit, he state the date and type of accident, the location of the accident, the injuries sustained, and the complete names and addresses of all hospitals, physicians, dentists and clinics he went to for any reason as a result of each accident.
In response to Interrogatory 18, Burrell failed to disclose the names and type of medical treatment he received from the three doctors who treated the injuries he sustained in the 1986 accident. In response to Interrogatory 20, Burrell failed to disclose that he suffered a neck injury in the prior accident, for which he was treated by the three undisclosed doctors.
The referee further found that as Burrell's attorney, Burkich failed to properly check or review Burrell's responses. As Burrell's wife, Burkich had personal knowledge of his previous neck injuries and of the prior medical treatment he received in connection with the 1986 accident. Despite her personal knowledge of the prior accident and injuries and the omission of this information in Burrell's response, Burkich notarized the response. Burkich not only failed to check or review the answers, she failed by inaction to correct or disclose the omissions. At the hearing, Burkich attempted to avoid her responsibility by blaming a non-lawyer, a retired, former Illinois attorney, who assisted Burrell in answering the interrogatories. Burkich failed to inform the non-lawyer of the prior accident and the injuries to insure proper disclosure. Burkich admitted that she failed to read, check or review the interrogatories for correctness and truthfulness. The information that was not revealed was known to Burkich and her client/husband at the time the interrogatories were prepared.
Seven months after Burkich notarized the interrogatories, Burrell was deposed with Burkich in attendance. Burrell was asked about prior accidents resulting in neck injuries and Burrell answered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matter of Griffith, SJC-09013 (Mass. 12/9/2003)
...expert's name to affidavit and filed it with court offering opinion that expert had not rendered). See also Florida Bar v. Burkich-Burrell, 659 So. 2d 1082, 1084 (Fla. 1995) (imposing thirty-day suspension for failing to disclose material facts to opposing counsel during discovery); Mississ......
-
The Florida Bar v. Charnock, 81857
...that a thirty-day suspension is an appropriate sanction to further the purposes of a disciplinary action. See Florida Bar v. Burkich-Burrell, 659 So.2d 1082 (Fla.1995) (attorney who sought to blame non-lawyer and refused to acknowledge responsibility for false information in interrogatories......
-
The Florida Bar v. Feinberg, SC93165.
...for a public reprimand. I believe that the conduct in this case warrants a thirty-day suspension. See Florida Bar v. Burkich-Burrell, 659 So.2d 1082 (Fla.1995) (attorney who failed to disclose materials to opposing counsel and failed to ensure that information provided to opposing counsel w......
-
The Florida Bar v. Forrester
...misconduct." Florida Bar v. Williams, 753 So.2d 1258, 1262 (Fla.2000). Forrester cites this Court's opinion in Florida Bar v. Burkich-Burrell, 659 So.2d 1082 (Fla.1995), to support her argument that a sixty-day suspension is too severe. In Burkich-Burrell, the Court imposed a thirty-day sus......