The Florida Bar v. Miele, 78589

• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM; BARKETT
• Citation: The Florida Bar v. Miele, 605 So.2d 866 (Fla. 1992)
• Decision Date: 08 October 1992
• Docket Number: No. 78589,78589
• Parties: 17 Fla. L. Week. S613 THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Joseph R. MIELE, Respondent.

Page 866

605 So.2d 866

17 Fla. L. Week. S613

THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Joseph R. MIELE, Respondent.

No. 78589.

Supreme Court of Florida Oct. 8, 1992.

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

William D. Slicker, William D. Slicker, P.A., St. Petersburg, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Miele, a member of The Florida Bar, petitions for review of a referee's report recommending that he be publicly reprimanded. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 15, Florida Constitution, and approve the referee's report and recommendations.

Miele and another man owned an apartment building in St. Petersburg that they converted to condominium units. When the county property appraiser raised their appraisals, the property owners, including Miele, appealed the assessments. Miele represented the unit owners in annual lawsuits from 1981 to 1987, and, over the years, the other unit owners paid Miele for pursuing their collective claims. The litigation concluded in 1989 with the unit owners being awarded refunds and attorney's fees. Miele gave the other owners their refunds, but kept the fee awards.

The unit owners that eventually complained to the bar said that Miele told them that the issue of attorney's fees had not been decided. In January 1990, however, these owners learned that fees had, indeed, been awarded and asked Miele for reimbursement. Other unit owners also demanded reimbursement of the fees they had paid Miele.

The bar filed a complaint against Miele, alleging that he had, among other things, collected an excessive fee. ^* After conducting a hearing, the referee found: 1) although the bar did not prove that Miele misrepresented the fee issue to his clients, the record showed that he failed to account for his time and to provide information about the fee award; 2) Miele did not maintain his trust account records; and 3) the bar did not prove that Miele charged excessive fees or improperly retained the court-awarded fees, but his failure to communicate with his clients resulted in their bona fide belief that at least a portion of those fees belonged to them. The referee found that, although the bar had not proved some of its charges against Miele, it showed that Miele violated the following Rules Regulating The Florida Bar: 4-1.4(a) (keeping a client reasonably informed) and (b) (explaining matters to a client so that an informed decision can be made), 4-1.15(d) (compliance with the trust accounting rules), and 5-1.1(b) (records to be preserved for six years). The referee recommended that Miele receive a public reprimand and pay the costs of this disciplinary proceeding.

In his petition for review Miele argues that the bar did not prove that he acted from a selfish motive as found by the referee, that a public reprimand is not warranted, and that, because the bar did not prove all of its allegations against him, he should not have to pay all of the costs. We disagree with each of his contentions.

A referee's findings are presumed to be correct and will...