Florida Bar v. Harper
1988 Fla. LEXIS 306, 518 So.2d 262, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 25 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When determining appropriate attorney discipline, courts must balance fairness to society (public protection and access to legal services), fairness to the respondent (punishment and rehabilitation), and the need to deter others from similar misconduct, particularly in cases involving egregious trust account violations.
Facts:
- Woodrow Harper accepted a $100 fee from Ralph Davis to represent him in a dispute with a garage over repairs and storage charges for Davis’ truck.
- Harper never took any action on Davis's case and, on several occasions, misrepresented the status of the case to Davis.
- In a separate incident, Harper was given $26,109 by a client to be applied toward the client’s construction loan.
- Harper deposited the $26,109 into his trust account.
- Harper wrote four checks totaling $12,100 from the trust account to himself or his office account for admittedly improper personal purposes.
- Harper's trust account later became overdrawn.
- Harper sent an unsigned check for $27,008.05 to the bank when the balance in his trust account was only $39.86.
- Harper eventually borrowed $30,000 to make the required payment for the construction loan.
- Harper's trust account record-keeping was so inadequate that The Florida Bar had to reconstruct all transactions to complete a review.
Procedural Posture:
- Two clients filed separate complaints against Woodrow Harper with The Florida Bar regarding incidents in 1985.
- The Florida Bar initiated disciplinary proceedings against Harper based on these complaints.
- A referee was appointed to conduct proceedings and investigate the alleged misconduct.
- The referee found Harper guilty of multiple violations of former disciplinary rules in both complaints (Case No. 69,053 and Case No. 69,054).
- For Case No. 69,053, the referee recommended a three-month suspension with automatic reinstatement.
- For Case No. 69,054, the referee recommended a three-month suspension to run concurrently with the first, along with two years of probation, supervision, and semiannual audits of his trust account.
- Neither Harper nor The Florida Bar contested the referee’s findings of guilt.
- The Florida Bar contested the referee’s recommended discipline for the second complaint (Case No. 69,054), arguing for a more severe sanction.
- The case came before the Supreme Court of Florida for review of the referee's report and recommended discipline.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a three-month suspension sufficient discipline for an attorney who commits multiple acts of trust account mismanagement, deceit, neglect, and commingling of funds, particularly when the Bar argues for a more severe sanction?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, a three-month suspension is not sufficient discipline for the totality of Harper's misconduct, especially concerning his trust fund account. The Court adopted the referee's findings of guilt for all violations. For Case No. 69,053 (neglect and deceit), the Court adopted the recommended three-month suspension. However, for Case No. 69,054 (trust account violations), the Court determined that a three-month suspension was insufficient when measured against the criteria established in The Florida Bar v. Pahules. This criteria requires balancing fairness to society, fairness to the respondent, and the need for deterrence. Harper knowingly and willfully overdrew his trust account, failed to keep proper records, and used trust funds for personal purposes. The Court concluded that a six-month suspension, running concurrently with the three-month suspension, followed by two years of probation with supervision and semiannual audits, was the appropriate discipline given the severity of the trust account misconduct and consistent with prior precedent in similar cases.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the Florida Supreme Court's stringent stance on attorney trust account violations, establishing that such misconduct, including commingling, misuse of funds, and inadequate record-keeping, warrants significant disciplinary action beyond mere admonition. The application of the Pahules factors provides a clear framework for courts to determine appropriate sanctions, ensuring public protection, attorney rehabilitation, and deterrence. This decision serves as a critical warning to attorneys regarding the strict fiduciary duties associated with client funds and the severe consequences of breaching those duties, even in the absence of a prior disciplinary history.
