The Florida Bar v. Rendina, 73545

• Decision Date: 06 June 1991
• Docket Number: No. 73545,73545
• Citation: 583 So.2d 314
• Parties: 16 Fla. L. Weekly S434 THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Richard F. RENDINA, Respondent.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 314

583 So.2d 314

16 Fla. L. Weekly S434

THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Richard F. RENDINA, Respondent.

No. 73545.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 6, 1991.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 20, 1991.

John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director and John T. Berry, Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, and Jacquelyn P. Needelman, Bar Counsel, Miami, for complainant.

Fred Haddad and Lance Thibideau, Fort Lauderdale, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before us upon the referee's report recommending that respondent Richard F. Rendina receive a two-year suspension for violations of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. Both parties petition for review. ¹

The Florida Bar charged respondent with attempting to bribe an assistant state attorney to obtain a lesser criminal sentence for his client. ² The referee found respondent guilty of violating rules 11.02(3)(a) (commission of an act contrary to honesty, justice, or good moral); and 11.02(3)(b) (commission of a crime) of the Florida Bar Integration Rule, article XI; and disciplinary rules 1-102(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not engage in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude); 1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice); and 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law) of the Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility. The referee recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years.

First, respondent argues that the referee's findings of fact do not support the allegations of the complaint. Respondent notes that although the Bar alleged that he attempted to bribe the state attorney, the referee found only that respondent maintained improper conversations regarding bribery. We reject this contention. Respondent pled guilty to the criminal charge of conspiracy to commit unlawful compensation. The evidence for that case included taped conversations between respondent and his client during the period of time in question. Those conversations were presented to the referee and are part of this record. We are satisfied that respondent's own words adequately support the conclusion that the rules in question were violated.

We likewise reject respondent's arguments pertaining to various alleged errors in the admission of evidence. Because bar disciplinary proceedings are quasi-judicial rather than civil or criminal, the referee is not bound by technical rules of evidence. The Fla. Bar v. Vannier, 498 So.2d 896 (Fla.1986); State ex rel. The Fla. Bar v. Dawson, 111 So.2d 427 (Fla.1959). The referee did not abuse his discretion regarding the admissibility of evidence. Nor do we find merit in respondent's claim that he was entrapped into committing the charged offenses. Accordingly, we accept and approve the referee's findings of fact pertaining to the violation of the bar rules.

Both parties contest the referee's recommendation of discipline. The Florida Bar argues that respondent's conduct warrants disbarment, whereas respondent suggests that two years' suspension is too harsh. We concur with The Florida Bar that disbarment is the only appropriate discipline in this case. Bribing a public official for a reduction of sentence attacks the very core of our system of justice. It is...