The Florida Bar v. St. Laurent
| Decision Date | 08 April 1993 |
| Docket Number | 77594,Nos. 75686,s. 75686 |
| Citation | 617 So.2d 1055 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Week. S238 THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Louis S. ST. LAURENT, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director and John T. Berry, Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, and Patricia S. Etkin, Bar Counsel and Arlene K. Sankel, Co-Bar Counsel, Miami, for complainant.
Frederick R. Mann of Wampler, Buchanan and Breen, P.A., Miami, for respondent.
The Florida Bar seeks review of the referee's recommended discipline in this matter. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, Sec. 15, Fla. Const.
The charges at issue in this case stem from Louis St. Laurent's involvement in south Florida's real estate market. St. Laurent served as Chief Assistant State Attorney for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit from 1969 to 1980. In 1980, St. Laurent resigned from the state attorney's office to serve as president, director, and sole shareholder of Can Am Investments, Inc. Can Am was the developer and marketing agent for the Topsider Resort Condominium Association, Inc., a time-share condominium in the Florida Keys. During his tenure with Can Am, St. Laurent was not engaged in the actual practice of law. However, he was a member of The Florida Bar and, therefore, subject to the rules regulating the Bar. The Fla. Bar v. Della-Donna, 583 So.2d 307, 310 (Fla.1989); The Fla. Bar v. Bennett, 276 So.2d 481, 484 (Fla.1973).
The Bar filed two complaints against St. Laurent alleging fraud in the way Topsider's time-share units were sold and the way the warranty deeds were executed and delivered.
The first complaint alleged that St. Laurent had prepared and executed warranty deeds to purchasers of time-share units which represented that the purchasers were receiving free and clear title to their units. In fact, there was a cloud on their title, First Federal's mortgage. The complaint also alleges that St. Laurent misdirected and converted to his own use those funds received from purchasers which should have been used to satisfy the underlying mortgage.
The second complaint alleges that St. Laurent executed a warranty deed to Raymond and Ann Martin which purported to convey clear and free title to a time-share unit when, in actuality, the property was encumbered by a mortgage. Also, St. Laurent misdirected and converted cash sale proceeds with regard to the Martin's purchase, in that said funds were not used to satisfy the underlying mortgage on the unit. Finally, St. Laurent misdirected and converted funds which should have been held in escrow.
The complaints charged that St. Laurent's actions violated Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(4) () and 1-102(A)(6) () of the former Code of Professional Responsibility and article XI, rule 11.02(3)(a) of the former Integration Rule of The Florida Bar (commission of an act contrary to honesty, justice, or good morals). Pursuant to a motion by the Bar, the complaints were consolidated. In January 1992, St. Laurent pled no contest to the allegations in the complaint. The no-contest plea was treated as an unconditional guilty plea. A final hearing before the referee was held in April 1992 to determine the appropriate discipline.
In his report, the referee found that no aggravating circumstances existed and that there was substantial mitigation. The referee recommended that St. Laurent be given a public reprimand and a forty-five-day suspension followed by twenty-four months' probation with the special condition that he pay restitution to an injured party. The referee also recommended that St. Laurent pay $14,932.89 in costs. The Bar appealed.
The Bar first claims that the referee's findings regarding which rules St. Laurent violated do not coincide with the violations charged in the complaint. We agree that the referee's report is unclear regarding which disciplinary rules St. Laurent violated. In light of St. Laurent's unconditional guilty plea to the violations alleged in the Bar's complaints, and to clear up any uncertainty, we find that St. Laurent is guilty of the violations charged by the Bar.
Next, the Bar argues that St. Laurent's conduct warrants disbarment. In recommending only a forty-five-day...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Florida Bar v. Williams, 91,839.
...authorizing an award of costs where, as here, the Bar was entirely unsuccessful in prosecuting its case. Accord Florida Bar v. St. Laurent, 617 So.2d 1055, 1056-57 (Fla.1993) (recognizing referee's discretion in approving recommendation that guilty respondent pay only a portion of the Bar's......