The Florida Bar v. Robinson, s. 82886

• Decision Date: 11 May 1995
• Docket Number: Nos. 82886,83590,s. 82886
• Parties: 20 Fla. L. Weekly S231 THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. R. Michael ROBINSON, Respondent.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 554

654 So.2d 554

20 Fla. L. Weekly S231

THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. R. Michael ROBINSON, Respondent.

Nos. 82886, 83590.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 11, 1995.

John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director and John T. Berry, Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, and David R. Ristoff, Branch Staff Counsel and Joseph A. Corsmeier, Asst. Staff Counsel, Tampa, for complainant.

Joseph F. McDermott, St. Pete Beach, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The Florida Bar petitions this Court for review of the referee's findings and recommendation that attorney R. Michael Robinson receive a public reprimand and two years probation and be assessed the costs of the proceedings along with other disciplinary sanctions. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, Sec. 15, Fla. Const.

The Florida Bar filed a two-count complaint against Robinson. Count one alleged that Robinson had failed to adequately communicate with a client. Count two alleged Robinson had neglected to file a notice of appeal on behalf of another client. The Bar subsequently filed a second complaint against Robinson alleging he had failed to adequately prepare for another client's criminal trial. All three cases were consolidated for hearing before a referee.

At the hearing before the referee, the Bar presented substantial evidence to prove the three charges against Robinson as set out above. In response, Robinson offered mitigating evidence. As to the inadequate communication charge, for example, Robinson stated that his client had moved several times and his client had also been hospitalized in the psychiatric units of two different Veterans' Administration hospitals.

As to the inadequate trial preparation charge, Robinson claimed that he nonetheless competently represented his client at trial, and his client was found guilty of lesser charges. The client's appellate attorney corroborated this testimony. ¹ Robinson has called to our attention, without objection from the Bar, that since this case was heard, the Second District reversed both of his client's convictions on issues that Robinson preserved for review during trial, see Holmes v. State, 642 So.2d 1387 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). In addition, Robinson notes that his other client has been granted permission to file a belated appeal.

At the conclusion of the disciplinary hearing, the referee found Robinson guilty of all three charges and recommended that Robinson be publicly reprimanded and placed on two years probation. ² In support of his recommended discipline, the referee found these additional mitigating circumstances: (1) Robinson had no prior disciplinary record; (2) Robinson's full and free disclosure to the disciplinary board and cooperative attitude toward the proceedings; and (3) Robinson's good character and reputation.

The Bar asks this Court to disregard the referee's recommendation and to suspend Robinson for 90 days. In support of the harsher discipline, the Bar cites to other disciplinary cases where 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...