The Florida Bar v. Grosso, 82776

• Decision Date: 22 December 1994
• Docket Number: No. 82776,82776
• Citation: 647 So.2d 840
• Parties: 20 Fla. L. Weekly S15 THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Domenic Leonard GROSSO, Respondent.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 840

647 So.2d 840

20 Fla. L. Weekly S15

THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Domenic Leonard GROSSO, Respondent.

No. 82776.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 22, 1994.

Domenic L. Grosso, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Attorney Domenic L. Grosso petitions this Court for review of the referee's recommendation that he receive a sixty-day suspension from the practice of law as a result of a disciplinary proceeding filed by The Florida Bar. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, Sec. 15, Fla. Const.

This proceeding concerns Grosso's failure to respond to an investigative inquiry initiated by The Florida Bar. ¹ Grosso concedes his guilt and agrees with the referee's recommended sanctions except for the recommended sixty-day suspension.

The Bar's original recommendation to the referee was for a ten-day suspension with a reprimand. The Bar's brief also candidly notes that the length of Grosso's suspension is not critical to the Bar.

A ten-day suspension, Grosso asserts, is more appropriate and supported under the authority of Florida Bar v. Vaughn, 608 So.2d 18 (Fla.1992), which involved a similar factual situation. In Vaughn, we held that the attorney violated Rule 4-8.1(b) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar which requires that a lawyer not knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority. 608 So.2d at 20. Vaughn received a public reprimand for failure to respond. ²

In Vaughn, we considered the merits of the substantive charges a mitigating factor in favor of Vaughn despite his prior disciplinary record. ³ However, unlike Grosso's unblemished record of fifteen years, Vaughn's record reflected prior reprimands for behavior that involved the practice of law. Nevertheless, this Court refused to impose a recommended thirty-day suspension. ⁴

This Court has a broad scope of review regarding a referee's legal conclusions and recommendations. Florida Bar in re Inglis, 471 So.2d 38, 41 (Fla.1985) (recognizing that it is ultimately this Court's responsibility to enter an appropriate judgment). We have stated that an appropriate judgment must be fair to society, fair to the respondent and severe enough to deter others. Florida Bar v. Pahules, 233 So.2d 130, 132 (Fla.1970). It is well settled that this Court has the authority to consider factors that reflect on an attorney's character in mitigation of the severity of the penalty. Id. Thus, we consider Grosso's fifteen-year unblemished record as a mitigating factor in this case.

In light of these principles, we find the Bar's original recommendation persuasive.

Accordingly, we direct that Grosso be suspended from the practice of law for a period of ten days, and, before he resumes the practice of law, he is required to (1) provide the Bar a certification from a Florida licensed psychiatrist attesting to his ability to resume his practice and (2) provide the Bar a complete response to the substantive charges underlying this proceeding. The suspension will be effective thirty days from the filing of this opinion so that Grosso can close out his practice and protect the interests of existing clients. If Grosso notifies this Court in writing that he is no longer practicing and does not need the thirty days to protect existing clients, this Court...