The Florida Bar v. Martocci, No. 88180
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM; The referee; KOGAN |
| Citation | 699 So.2d 1357 |
| Parties | 22 Fla. L. Weekly S621 THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Henry J. MARTOCCI, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 02 October 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 88180 |
Page 1357
v.
Henry J. MARTOCCI, Respondent.
Page 1358
John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director and John T. Berry, Staff Counsel, Tallahassee; and Rose Ann Digangi-Schneider, Frances R. Brown and Eric M. Turner, Bar Counsel, Orlando, for complainant.
James R. Dressler, Cocoa Beach, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
We have for review the complaint of The Florida Bar and the referee's report regarding alleged ethical breaches by respondent Henry J. Martocci. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. Although we find the conduct involved herein to be patently unprofessional, we approve the referee's report and recommendation that respondent be found not guilty of the formal ethical violations alleged in The Florida Bar's complaint against him.
The Florida Bar filed a two-count complaint against respondent, alleging the following violations:
Count I--Violation of rule of professional conduct 4-8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation);
Count II--Violation of rule of professional conduct 4-8.4(d) (prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).
The referee, Judge Cynthia G. Angelos, filed her report on December 5, 1996, after holding a pretrial telephone conference on October 29 and a final evidentiary hearing on November 8, 1996. Judge Angelos recommended that respondent be found not guilty of both allegations, and that each party bear its own costs. The Bar petitioned this Court for review of the referee's report, claiming that based on the undisputed facts, the referee wrongly found respondent not guilty of the allegations. The following facts are from Judge Angelos' report.
Respondent represented the former wife in a child custody and support case. J. Scott Lanford represented the former husband in the same action. Lanford scheduled the deposition of Dr. Bonnie Slade, a psychologist, for Monday, April 24, 1995, at 8:45 a.m. at Dr. Slade's office. Present for the deposition were respondent, Lanford, respondent's client, and her new husband. Two days earlier on Saturday, April 22, Lanford faxed a notice of deposition of Dr. Whitacre to be taken at Lanford's office at 6:30 p.m. on Monday, April 24. Respondent's office was closed on Saturday.
Page 1359
Dr. Slade's deposition was reported by Stephanie McGraw using stenographic notes and a tape recorder. The deposition concluded after approximately fifteen minutes when Dr. Slade advised both attorneys that she had a 9 a.m. appointment. Lanford then stated that the deposition would conclude at a later time, after which Dr. Slade left the room. Lanford then addressed respondent, saying, "You are aware we have a deposition of Dr. Whitacre in my office tonight." When respondent stated that he was not aware of the deposition, Lanford replied, "Six-thirty in my office. Be there. Thank you."
After leaving the room, respondent approached Lanford from the rear, put his hand on his shoulder, and said to him, "F___ you." Lanford replied, "I'm sorry, what did you say?" Respondent then called Lanford "A___hole," whereupon Lanford said, "Say it again." After respondent repeated the epithet, Lanford advised Ms. McGraw, the court reporter, to include the post-deposition comments in the transcript to be presented to the trial court. Ms. McGraw had allowed her tape recorder to continue during the parties' exchange, but only picked up the term "a__hole." Dr. Riebsame, a psychologist working in the same office as Dr. Slade, testified before the grievance committee that he witnessed the confrontation between the two attorneys and that respondent either pushed or pointed at Lanford's chest.
Ms. McGraw and Lanford testified that while they were in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Fla. BAR V. RATINER, No. SC08-689
...Florida Bar v. Morgan, 791 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 2001);2 Florida Bar v. Martocci, 791 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 2001); Florida Bar v. Martocci, 699 So. 2d 1357 (Fla. 1997); Florida Bar v. Wasserman, 675 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 1996); DeBock v. State, 512 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1987); Florida Bar v. Hirsch, 342 So. ......
-
5-H Corp. v. Padovano, No. 90887
...standards of conduct no matter the location or circumstances in which an attorney's services are being rendered. Florida Bar v. Martocci, 699 So.2d 1357, 1360 8 Rhetorically speaking, who better than judges, who have daily interaction with attorneys, to keep a proverbial finger on the pulse......
-
The Florida Bar v. Williams, No. 91,839.
...of any of the offenses charged, this Court has typically ordered each party to bear its own costs, see, e.g., Florida Bar v. Martocci, 699 So.2d 1357, 1360 (Fla.1997); Florida Bar v. Lanford, 691 So.2d 480, 481 (Fla.1997); Florida Bar v. Carr, 574 So.2d 59, 59 (Fla.1990), or ordered the Bar......
-
The Florida Bar v. Martocci, No. SC95315.
...as it did not rise to a level that violated rule 4-8.4(d). In support of this proposition, Martocci argues that Florida Bar v. Martocci, 699 So.2d 1357 (Fla.1997), established a distinction between unprofessional conduct and unethical conduct violating rule 4-8.4(d). In that case, we upheld......
-
The Fla. BAR V. RATINER, No. SC08-689
...Florida Bar v. Morgan, 791 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 2001);2 Florida Bar v. Martocci, 791 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 2001); Florida Bar v. Martocci, 699 So. 2d 1357 (Fla. 1997); Florida Bar v. Wasserman, 675 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 1996); DeBock v. State, 512 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1987); Florida Bar v. Hirsch, 342 So. ......
-
5-H Corp. v. Padovano, No. 90887
...standards of conduct no matter the location or circumstances in which an attorney's services are being rendered. Florida Bar v. Martocci, 699 So.2d 1357, 1360 8 Rhetorically speaking, who better than judges, who have daily interaction with attorneys, to keep a proverbial finger on the pulse......
-
The Florida Bar v. Williams, No. 91,839.
...of any of the offenses charged, this Court has typically ordered each party to bear its own costs, see, e.g., Florida Bar v. Martocci, 699 So.2d 1357, 1360 (Fla.1997); Florida Bar v. Lanford, 691 So.2d 480, 481 (Fla.1997); Florida Bar v. Carr, 574 So.2d 59, 59 (Fla.1990), or ordered the Bar......
-
The Florida Bar v. Martocci, No. SC95315.
...as it did not rise to a level that violated rule 4-8.4(d). In support of this proposition, Martocci argues that Florida Bar v. Martocci, 699 So.2d 1357 (Fla.1997), established a distinction between unprofessional conduct and unethical conduct violating rule 4-8.4(d). In that case, we upheld......