The Florida Bar v. Bosse, 78882
| Decision Date | 10 December 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 78882,78882 |
| Citation | 609 So.2d 1320 |
| Parties | 17 Fla. L. Weekly S747 THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Richard E. BOSSE, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, and John T. Berry, Staff Counsel Tallahassee, and David G. McGunegle, Bar Counsel, and Kristen M. Jackson, Co-Bar Counsel, Orlando, for complainant.
T.N. Murphy, Jr. of T.N. Murphy, Jr., P.A., Deerfield Beach, for respondent.
This cause is before us to review a referee's report on a complaint of The Florida Bar in which the referee recommended that the Respondent, Richard E. Bosse, be found not guilty on all counts and that Bosse's costs be assessed against the Bar. The Bar does not contest the referee's finding of not guilty, but does contest the referee's recommendation that the Bar pay Bosse's costs in the amount of $9,065.36. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, Sec. 15, Fla. Const. We approve the referee's report and approve the payment of costs but only to the extent of the designated recoverable costs set forth in the rules.
This case arose from a client's complaint about Bosse's representation in an adoption that failed. During the proceedings before the referee, Bosse initially filed a motion for summary judgment, which the referee denied. Subsequently, the referee found Bosse not guilty on all counts. In a separate hearing on the issue of costs, the referee found that the Bar had "presented an extremely weak case before the referee"; that Bosse "was the strong prevailing party"; and that Bosse should be awarded costs in the amount of $9,065.36. The costs included service of process expenses, long distance telephone charges, court reporter fees, and expert witness fees.
The Bar contests the recommendation that costs be assessed against the Bar. The Bar argues that costs are strictly governed by the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, which do not allow an assessment of costs against the Bar in disciplinary cases. The rules state that a referee's report is to include "a statement of costs incurred by The Florida Bar and recommendations as to the manner in which such costs should be taxed." Rule Regulating Fla. Bar 3-7.6(k)(1)(5). The Bar asserts that this rule clearly reflects that only costs incurred by the Bar are to be considered by the referee. The Bar acknowledges that this Court has in the past awarded costs to a respondent. However, the Bar distinguishes those cases from this case by the fact that this Court has not addressed the question of awarding costs to a respondent under the present rules. The Bar claims that requiring it to pay costs would have a chilling effect on the disciplinary process, would impact the Bar's budget and dues, and would disrupt and require a complete restructuring of the disciplinary process.
Alternatively, the Bar argues that, should the Court choose to allow cost awards to prevailing respondents, the standard for determining the appropriateness of such awards should be the existence of clear and convincing evidence that the Bar abused its discretion in unreasonably prosecuting or continuing to prosecute a case when it was obvious from the available evidence that the Bar could not prevail. Applying that standard here, the Bar contends that, because this case was pursued only after a finding of probable cause had been rendered by the grievance committee, was brought in good faith, and did not involve any prosecutorial misconduct, the referee abused his discretion by awarding costs to Bosse.
Finally, the Bar maintains that this Court should limit the taxable costs to those specifically enumerated in the rules if we determine that Bosse is entitled to recover costs in this instance. The Bar contends that the long distance telephone charges and service of process expenses are not allowed under the rules.
We have never held that the Bar is the only party entitled to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
W.S.M., Jr. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services
...that a "party recovering judgment shall recover all his legal costs and charges...." § 57.041, Fla. Stat. (1993). See The Florida Bar v. Bosse, 609 So.2d 1320 (Fla.1992); The Florida Bar v. Davis, 419 So.2d 325, 328 (Fla.1982)("In civil actions the general rule in regard to costs is that th......
-
The Florida Bar v. Martinez-Genova
...respondent. This Court has final discretionary authority to award costs. Fla. Bar v. Lechtner, 666 So.2d 892 (Fla.1996); Fla. Bar v. Bosse, 609 So.2d 1320 (Fla.1992). In Lechtner, this Court [G]enerally, when there is a finding that an attorney has been found guilty of violating a Rule Regu......
-
The Florida Bar v. Lechtner, 83720
...Florida Bar v. Miele, 605 So.2d 866 (Fla.1992). This Court has the final discretionary authority to assess costs. See Florida Bar v. Bosse, 609 So.2d 1320 (Fla.1992). We agree with the referee's finding that the Bar's costs were reasonable and thus assess these costs against Lechtner. While......
-
Florida Bar v. Martinez-Genova, No. SC04-2365 (Fla. 12/14/2006), SC04-2365.
...to allow recovery of costs incurred during this appeal. This Court has final discretionary authority to award costs. Fla. Bar v. Bosse, 609 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 1992). This Court has found that it may consider whether an expense is reasonable and award or refuse to award that cost as sound dis......