The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those with disabilities and should be used for no other purpose. These are not legal documents, and may not be used as legal authority. This transcript is not an official document of the Florida Supreme Court.
The Florida Bar v. Francisco Ramon Rodriguez
SC03-909
THE NEXT CASE ON OUR CALENDAR THE FLORIDA BAR VERSUS FRAN SKEUS -- FRANCISCO RAMONE RODRIQUEZ. COUNSEL. AND I WOULD SUGGEST TO ALL COUNSEL THAT CERTAINLY THE COURT IS VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS AND UNLESS THE FACTS ARE ESSENTIAL TO YOUR PRESENTATION I WOULD URGE YOU TO USE YOUR TIME THOUGHTFULLY TO ADDRESS THE LEGAL QUESTIONS, BECAUSE WE WANT YOU TO WALK AWAY KNOWING THAT YOU'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS YOUR ARGUMENTS AND IF WE SPEND TIME ON -- UNNECESSARILY IN OTHER AREAS SOMETIMES WE DON'T GET ALL OF OUR ARGUMENTS FINISH. SO MR. NACHWALTER. >> GOOD MORNING, MAY IT PLEASE YOUR COURT WITH ONLY TEN MINUTES EVEN BEEN -- BING A NEW YORKER I CAN'T TALK THAT FAST. I WILL TRY TO HIT THE POINTS THAT I THINK ARE RELEVANT AND I'M SURE YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR ME. BECAUSE LOOKING AT THE QUESTIONS THAT YOUR HONOR HAS SENT DOWN IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF, SUM PLEAMENTAL QUESTIONS FOR US TO BRIEF AS MUCH AS I WOULD LIKE TO ARGUE THE MERITS OF THIS APPEAL BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE RIGHT ON THE MERITS I GLEAN FROM THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU SENT FOR US TO BRIEF THAT THE QUESTION YOU ARE REALLY ASKING MY CLIENT IS DOES THE PUNISHMENT FIT THE CRIME? AND I WOULD SAY TO YOU UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE IT DOES. >> NOT -- THE PUNISHMENT FITTING THE CRIME IS AS FAR AS YOUR CLIENT IS CONCERNED I UNDERSTAND HE WAS THE LEAD TRIAL COUNSEL. >> YES. AND THERE WAS A COUPLE OF THESE CLIENTS THAT DIDN'T WANT TO STOP HIM. CORRECT? >> A COUPLE OF HIS CLIENTS BALKED AT SETTLING. >> DIDN'T HAVE TO TO SETTLE. ONE OF HIM HE SAID YOU DON'T SETTLE I'M WITHDRAWING. CORRECT? >> THEY HAD A HEARING BEFORE A CIRCUIT JUDGE AND THE JUDGE HAD A FULL HEARING ON IT AND HE GAVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY, GAVE THIS PARTICULAR CLIENT THE OPPORTUNITY -- >> ALL OF THAT WAS GOING ON WITHOUT DISCLOSING TO THE CLIENT THAT HE HAD THIS DEAL IN WHICH HE WAS GOING TO MAKE -- HOW MUCH? HOW MUCH WAS HIS CUT? >> A LITTLE BIT OVER A MILLION DOLLARS. >> RIGHT. >> SO HE DIDN'T DISCLOSE THAT TO HIS CLIENT. HOW CAN THE PUNISHMENT THAT IS RECOMMENDED HERE FIT THAT ETHICAL VIOLATION WHICH HAS TO BE AN ETHICAL VIOLATION? >> WELL IT WAS AN ETHICAL VIOLATION AND BECAUSE AS YOUR HONOR WELL KNOW WE COME UP WITH HERE FINDING OF FACT UNLESS THEY ARE CLEARLY ERRONEOUS BY THE REEFREE AND THE EVIDENCE WAS ACTUALLY WITH RESPECT TO THIS FEE AND OVER A MILLION DOLLARS IS A LOT OF MONEY THAT THEY GAVE UP A WHOLE -- THEY HAD A WHOLE BUNCH OF CASES. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THEY WANTED TO DO. THE REFEREE MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT DuPONT IMPOSED UPON THEM WHICH THEY RESISTED. SEE, THAT TO ME MISSES THE POINT. THE POINT IS THAT THEY ARE NOT REPRESENTING DuPONT. THEY ARE REPRESENTING THAT CLIENT THAT THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO HAVE THAT CLIENT KNOW AS MUCH AS THEY KNOW ABOUT WHAT THE SETTLEMENT IS ALL ABOUT. >> YOUR HONOR, YOU ARE RIGHT. AND AT NO TIME IN THIS CASE DID MY CLIENT NOT TAKE THE STAND, NOT TESTIFY THAT HE MADE A MISTAKE. WHAT HE DID WAS NOT PROPER. HE SHOWED REMORSE. AND OWNED UP TO HAVING A MADE A MISTAKE AND IT'S EASY IN HINDSIGHT 20/20 TO LOOK BACK INTO THE MIDDLE OF NIGHT WHERE THEY HAVE THIS GREAT DEAL FOR THEIR CLIENTS THE REFEREE MADE IT CLEAR THERE WERE TWO POTS OF MONEY. THAT'S THE BIG DISTINCTION IN THIS CASE. DuPONT SETTLED WITH THE CLIENTS. EXCEPT FOR TWO CLIENTS. EVERYBODY ELSE HAD AN OPTION TO ACCEPT THE SETTLEMENT OR NOT ACCEPT THE SETTLEMENT. AND THEY TURNED TO THE SPECIAL MASTER APPOINTED BY THE JUDGE WHO IS A MEDIATOR. THEY WERE NOT EXPERIENCED LAWYERS IN THIS BY THE REFEREE ALSO FOUND. SAID TO THIS EXPERIENCE MEDIATOR, CAN WE DO THIS? HE SAID, YES. THEY RESISTED IT THREE OR FOUR TIMES. AND THEN FINALLY WHEN DuPONT SAID YOU'VE GOT 59 MILLION ON THE TABLE FOR YOUR CLIENTS. IF YOU DON'T DO THIS INDIRECT PRACTICE RESTRICTION THERE'S NO DEAL. >> LET'S SEE. DID YOUR CLIENT START SAYING, WELL, GET THIS DEAL WE WOULD LIKE $12 MILLION. IN OTHER WORDS THIS IS SOMETHING WHERE THERE IS A DEFENSIVE COERCION, BUT IT'S NOT AS IF THIS AMOUNT WHICH WAS 6,645,000 JUST SORT OF FELL OUT OF THE AIR AND WAS YOU KNOW THROWN TO THEM. IT WAS A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT. AND I THINK WHAT JUSTICE WELLS IS SAYING IS THAT IT WAS KEPT SECRET FROM THE CLIENTS SO NOT ONLY WAS THERE AN ABSOLUTE CONFLICT OF INTEREST, BUT HOW WERE THEY FURTHERING THE INTEREST OF THEIR CLIENTS IN WHAT THEY WERE DOING. >> IF THEY WALKED OUT THAT NIGHT THERE WAS NO SETTLE. THE BIG SETTLEMENT WAS THE DAVIS SETTLE. BROKEN -- BRENDA WEBB SAID IF THEY HAD BLOWN THE DEAL I WOULD HAVE SUED THEM. SHE WAS 30 MILLION OF THE 59 MILLION. SHE SAID, THEY WORKED THEIR TAIL OFF IN THIS CASE. THEY GOT A GREAT RESULT FOR IT. JUSTICE PARIENTE, WE HAVE NEVER IN THIS CASE TAKEN THE POSITION THAT WHAT MR. RODRIQUEZ DID WAS NOT WRONG. >> THEY WERE OPERATING UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE JUDGE HAD ALREADY ANNOUNCED ORALLALLY THEY WOULD GRANT THE MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS. >> CORRECT. >> WHAT RISK WAS THERE OVER DuPONT WALKED AWAY IN REALITY? >>, YOU ARE SITTING HERE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT AS AN EXPERIENCED MEDIATOR. THREE TIMES THEY SAID NO WHO COMES BACK AND SAYS IF YOU DON'T DO IT THIS DEAL IS OFF. NOW, WE CAN HINDSIGHT THAT. >> JUST ON THAT AND WE'RE NOT REWEIGHING THE FACTS. BUT AS THE MEDIATOR OR THE REFEREES SAID NEITHER SIDE CALLED MR. HANSON. THE DuPONT LAWYERS ARE NOT THERE. I REALIZE THESE ARE -- THIS IS COMING IN A PRETTY SELF-INTERESTED WAY, WHICH IS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF YOUR CLIENT. SO ALTHOUGH WE MAY BE -- MAYBE HAVE TO ACCEPT IT IN TERMS OF THIS OVERALL SAYING I'M NOT SO IMPRESSED WITH THIS IDEA THAT EVERYONE AROUND THEM WAS TELLING THEM THIS IS WHAT YOU GOT TO DO. YOU KNOW THIS IS REAL WORLD. IT WAS 1996 AND I THINK EVERYBODY WOULD KNOW THAT THIS IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE CANONS OF ETHICS AND THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CLIENT. THE FACT THAT DuPONT ISN'T IN HERE, ALSO BEING SANCTIONED IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WILL BE CONSIDERING TODAY. >> WELL, I WOULD DEBATE WITH YOU AS I DID AT TRIAL. BUT WE HAVE LIMITED TIME HERE. THE FACT THAT THISES GOOD FINANCIALLY FOR THEM. THEY HAD OVER 15 CASES. ONE OF THE CASES THEY GOT OUT OF THE OFFICE RESULTED IN OVER 50 MILLION VERDICT WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN A LOT MORE THAN THE 6 MILLION THEY GOT. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THEY WANTED TO DO. BUT, WE COME TO THE COURT NOW WITH THE FINDING OF THE REFEREE WHO HEARD ALL OF THAT. WHO HEARD ALL OF THAT. >> MR. NACHWALTER THE REFEREE ALSO FOUND AS I UNDERSTAND IT THAT THERE WAS A LAWYER IN THE FIRM THAT DID SOME RESEARCH ABOUT WHETHER THIS AGREEMENT COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED AND THE CONCLUSION OF HIS RESEARCH WERE THAT IT COULD AS LONG AS ANY AGREEMENT WAS EXCUTED AFTER THE -- THESE CASES WERE TERMINATED WERE OVER EITHER BY SETTLEMENT OR BY A TRIAL. AND SO THEY KNEW THAT INFORMATION BEFORE THEY SIGNED THE AGREEMENT. >> WELL, I THINK YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER TWO THINGS. FIRST OF ALL, JUST CANTERO. WE HAVE THE ETHICS OPINION IN FLORIDA. IN 199 THERE WAS NO LAW. THERE WERE A LOT OF LAW REVIEW ARTICLE SUCH AS ONE BY PROFESSOR GELLER WHERE -- WHO ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THE PRACTICE AND RULES. WE LOOK AT THIS NOW AND WE SAY OKAY WE HAVE LAW ON THIS NOW. THERE WAS NO LAW. THEY HAD SOMEONE DO SOME RESEARCH. PRELIMINARY RESEARCH THAT CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THEY COULD DO A RETAINER AGREEMENT. >> BUT WASN'T IT AN OBLIGATION IN 1996? I ALWAYS THOUGHT IT WAS AN OBLIGATION PRIOR TO 1994 WHEN I WAS MEDIATING A CASE TO DISCLOSE TO MY CLIENT AND THE PEOPLE THAT I WAS ASKING TO ASSIGN A RELEASE, WHAT ARE THE TERMS OF THE DEAL? AND THAT I HAD TO DISCLOSE WHAT MY INTEREST WAS IN THE DEAL. WHAEPBT THAT THE LAW? WASN'T THAT THE ETHICAL OBLIGATION. >> SKWREFT WELLS. >> THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN IN THE MIDDLE THE NIGHT. THAT HAPPENED AFTER THIS WENT ON IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT. BECAUSE THERE HAD TO BE A DISCLOSURE BEFORE THERE WAS FINALITY. >> JUSTICE WELL, YOU ARE RIGHT. AND I'M NOT STANDING BEFORE YOU SAYING THAT THERE ARE ETHICS VIOLATIONS HERE, WHICH HE ADMITTED TO. WE COME HERE WITH ADMITTED ETHICS VIOLATIONS IN A SITUATION WHERE THE REFEREE FOUND THESE WERE EXCEPTIONAL RESULTS FOR THE CLIENT, WHICH THAT WHICH. NOW THE QUESTION IS WITH THESE ADMITTED ETHICAL VIOLATIONS, BY THE REFEREE FOUND -- >> ADMITTED THEY ARE ETHICAL VIOLATION. THE REEFREE SAYS THAT YOUR CLIENT CAN ONLY GET -- [INAUDIBLE] >> THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THIS AND YOUR CLIENTS WERE CERTAINLY ONE OF THOSE INVOLVED IN THIS OR WHY SHOULD YOUR CLIENT ONLY GET PROBATION AND WHY SHOULDN'T YOUR CLIENT HAVE TO DEPLOY? THOSE ARE THE ISSUE WE ASKED YOU A SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ON OTHER HAVING TO GIVE BACK THE MONEY THAT THEY RECEIVED FROM THE AGREEMENT? >> LET ME ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. BECAUSE THERE'S SEVERAL QUESTIONS IN THAT QUESTION. FIRST OF ALL, WHEN THE REEFREE LOOKED AT THE PUNISHMENT AND, YOU KNOW WE SHOULDN'T JUST SAY THAT HE'S GO -- GETTING A PUBLIC REPRIMAND. HE HAS 1,000 HOURS OF PRO BONO SERVICE. COULD YOU PLEASE TELL ME ABOUT THAT BEFORE YOUR TIME IS UP. >> SURE. BECAUSE -- MR. NACHWALTER YOU'VE EXTENDED YOUR TIME WITH THE QUESTIONS. PLEASE RESPOND TO THE QUESTIONS. >> LET ME ASK YOU -- I WILL FOCUS IN ON THE DISCORD JUST -- JUSTICE QUINCE BECAUSE I I THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT ME TO ANSWER. I HAVE TWO ANSWER. ONE THE TPABG KPHUL AND ONE IS LEGAL. FROM A FACTUAL STANDPOINT THE REEFREE HAD THAT IN FRONT OF HIM. HE LOOKED AT THE FACT. THERE ARE AT LEAST EIGHT MITIGATING FACTORS THAT HE LOOKED AT. HE LOOKED AT THE MAN. HE LOOKED AT WHO HE WAS. [INAUDIBLE] >> HE DIDN'T DO THAT. HE DID BOTH. BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE RULE, IF YOU LOOK AT 3-5.1 WHICH IS FORFEITURE IT SAYS THE REEFREE MAY. HE FIRST SAID HE DECLINED UNDER THE MAY BECAUSE HE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE PUNITIVE THE RULE SAYS MAY. HE SAID IT WOULD BE PUNITIVE AND NOT APPROPRIATE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. THE MAN DOESN'T HAVE THE MONEY. AND IT'S BEEN TEN YEARS. THIS IS TEN YEARS OLD. >> BUT WHY IS IT TEN YEARS OLD? >> THE BAR BROUGHT A PROCEEDING THEN ANOTHER PROCEEDING. THEN DECIDED TO -- >> DO YOU DISAGREE THAT HE KNEW IT WAS WRONG BECAUSE HE HID IT FROM HIS OWN CLIENT? HE KNEW IT AT THAT TIME. WHEN THE BAR STARTED INVESTIGATING IF -- OOP -- OOPS I DID A LITTLE BIT OF RESEARCH AND I WAS WRONG. WHY NOT COUGH IT UP THEN? >> MR. NACHWALTER 30 SECONDS PLEASE. >> I DON'T KNOW WHICH QUESTION TO DEAL WITH. >> I -- DON'T LOSE SIGHT OF THE RULE. HE EXERCISES THE REFEREE MAY FIND SPECIFIC FINDING AS TO WHY HE THOUGHT IT WAS PUNITIVE AND NOT APPROPRIATE BASED ON ALL OF THE FACTORS AND WHO THIS PERSON WAS AND THE FACT THAT THIS MEMBER HE SPENT OVER A MILLION DOLLARS DEFENDING HIMSELF BETWEEN THE BAR AGREEMENT AND ALL THE LAWSUITS FROM THE CLIENT IN THE SECOND POINT IS THE RULE DOES NOT APPLY. THERE ARE THREE SUPREME COURT CASES. THREE TIMES THE SUPREME COURT THE MOST RECENT TIME IN FREDERICK HAVE SAID THAT IF IT'S NOT RESITION, THERE WAS NO HARM TO THE CLIENTS, THE MONEY DIDN'T COME FROM THE CLIENTS, THIS COURT HAS SAID ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE CLIENT SECURITY FUND IS DESIGNED UNDER RULE 7 THAT GET MONEY BACK TO THE CLIENTS THAT WAS TAKEN FROM THE CLIENT. THAT'S NOT THIS -- >> TEN SECONDS AND WE HAVE TO FINISH UP. SO THE RULE DOES NOT PERMIT THIS COURT AND I SAID IT THREE SEPARATE TIMES TO HAVE SOMEBODY PAY MONEY THAT'S NOT RESITIONNARY. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> MR. DAVEY. MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. I'M JIM DAVEY BAR COUNSEL FOR THE FLORIDA BAR. WE HAVE CROSS-PETITIONED FOR REVIEW IN THIS CASE ASKING THIS COURT TO IMPOSE A TWO-YEAR SUSPENSION AND TO DISCOURSE THE PROHIBITED FEE. WE FEEL THIS IS THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO DETER THIS KIND OF CONDUCT IN FLORIDA, THE REWARD ARE SO GREAT THE CORPORATIONS HAVE MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO DANGLE OVER THE HEADS OF OUR LAWYERS. THE RISK OF GETTING CAUGHT IS ALMOST NOTHING WHEN IT'S DONE IN SECRET BETWEEN THE LAWYERS. >> WHAT IS THE BAR'S POSITION ON THIS PROPORTION TPHALITY ISSUE IN THIS CASE? ONE THIS WAS -- THIS SEEMS TO ME HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE AS FAR AS THE LAWYERS THAT WERE REPRESENTING DuPONT. THE BAR DIDN'T PROCEED AGAINST THOSE LAWYERS. >> THEY WERE NOT ADMITTED IN THE STATE OF THE FLORIDA. >> NONE OF THEM WERE ADMITTED. >> NO. >> AN ARBITRATION IN MIAMI AND NO LAWYERS FOR THE CLIENT. >> AND THEY WERE NOT EVEN ADMITTED PRO HOP. >> WE HAVE NO JURISDICTION. >> THE PRACTICE OF LAW BROUGHT AGAINST THOSE LAWYERS? >> NO IT HAS NOT. >> WHO WAS REPRESENTING THEM IN THE PROCEEDING THAT THE JUDGE WAS CONDUCTING? >> THERE WAS AN ORAL STATEMENT BY THE JUDGE THAT SHE WAS GOING TO GRANT THE MOTION FOR SANCTIONS. WHO WAS REPRESENTING DuPONT IN THOSE PROCEEDINGS. >> IT WAS NOT THESE LAWYERS. >> NOBODY AT THE MEDIATION. >> NO. >> WAS COUNSEL OF RECORD. >> NO, THEY DID NOT EVER APPEAR IN COURT. WE'RE TALKING HERE ABOUT PROPORTION TPHALITY AND IT'S WHY THE COURT OBVIOUS -- PROPORTIONALITY AND IT'S WHY THE COURT HAD THE FRIEDMAN STIPULATION. I WAS SURE THEY WERE BROAD IN DIFFERENT VENUES WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT REFEREES DECIDING WHAT SEEMS TO ME ALMOST AN IDENTICAL FACT ISSUE THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED IN 1997 BEFORE THE BAR, THE REFEREE IN THIS CASE SAID THAT THERE WAS NO MISAPPREHENSION BY THE BAR AND IN THE SAME FACTS THE REFEREE IN THE ST. LOUIS CASE FOUND THAT THERE WAS MISAPPREHENSION. SO WHERE DO YOU RATE? WHY IS MR. RODRIQUEZ LESS CULPABLE THAT MR. ST. LOUIS. >> THE LIES. THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME EXCEPT FOR THE LIES AND THE FACT THAT MR. ST. LOUIS WAS THE PRIMARY INSTIGATEOR. THE PRIMARY NEGOTIATOR REGARDING THE APPEAL AND HE IS THE ONE WHO ACTUALLY SIGNED IT. AND HE'S THE ONE THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE CLIENTS AND TELL THEM ABOUT IT. HE DIDN'T DO IT. AND HE WENT AROUND THE STATE COERCING THEM TO SIGN THE SETTLEMENT. YOU ASKED AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR ARGUMENT YOU SAID YOU REQUESTED A TWO-YEAR SUSPENSION. WHAT'S THE AUTHORITY FOR A TWO-YEAR SUSPENSION? >> THE TWO-YEAR SUS SPEPBION. WE BELIEVE THAT THIS CASE IS MORE ETKPRAOEGOUS THAN HAGER AND BRAND AND THERE'S THIS INSIDIOUSMENT SCHEME TO TAKE THE INTEREST ON THE CLIENT'S FUNDS WHICH WE FEEL IS VERY SERIOUS. THEY WERE NOT SENT. >> THERE WAS A PREVIOUS CASE BEFORE THE BAR INVOLVING INTEREST OF THE CLIENT'S FUNDS. SO HAVEN'T THEY ALREADY SET A SANCTION FOR THAT? THE MATTER CAME UP. BUT IT WAS NEVER LITIGATED AND I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS IN, IN THE CONSENT JUDGMENT. >> BUT THERE'S NO FINDING ON THE INTEREST OF -- TAKING THE INTEREST OF THE CLIENT'S MONEY. THAT WAS $245,000. >> NO, NO YOUR HONOR. THAT'S NOT THE 245,000. THE INTEREST ON THE CLIENT'S MONEY IS 393,000. >> IS THAT A FINDING THOUGH? YOU JUST ANSWERED JUSTICE CANTERO'S QUESTION SAYING IT'S MORE EGREGIOUS BECAUSE OF THE INTEREST. I DON'T SEE THAT AS BEING A FINDING THAT THERE'S A VIOLATION OF THE RULE AT LEAST IN THIS PROCEEDING. >> YES. IT WAS THE INTEREST ADVERSE TO THE CLIENT. THAT RULE. THAT HE WAS FOUND GUILT. >> DID YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO FINISH JUSTICE CANTERO'S QUESTION? AS TO THE AUTHORITY FOR A TWO-YEAR SUSPENSION? >> IN RAY HAGER, IN RE GRANT THE FACT SHE WAS SO CLOSELY INVOLVED WITH THIS. HE WAS IN ON EVERYTHING. AND HE ALSO WAS THE PRIMARY TRIAL COUNSEL FOR THE FIRM. HE KNEW EVERYTHING THAT WAS GOING ON. HE WAS THERE WHEN MR. ST. LOUIS SIGNED IT. HE HAD CONCURRED OR AGREED WITH IT. HE ACCEPTED HIS SHARE OF THE 6.445 MILLION. >> DID THE REEFREE MAKE ANY FINDINGS AS TO HIS REPRESENTATIONS TO THE FLORIDA BAR IN THE PRIOR PROCEEDING IN THE MEETING WITH THE FLORIDA BAR? >> YES, HE DID. HE FOUND THAT HE DID NOT LIE TO THE FLORIDA BAR IN VIOLATION OF 4-1.8-B. THEY SAID HE SHOULD HAVE DISCLOSED IT. HE SHOULD HAVE. WAS THAT THE SAME MEANING THAT THE OTHER REEFREE IN THE ST. LOUIS CASE FOUND THAT THEY -- HE DID AFFIRMATIVELY CREATE A MISAPPREHENSION. IN OTHER WORDS WERE THEY ALL THE SAME MEETING? >> I THINK THAT THE REFEREE IN THE ST. LOUIS CASE WAS STRONGER. I BELIEVE THAT HE NOT ONLY DID HE FIND THEM AS MISAPPREHENSION BUT ALSO THAT THERE WAS A CONDUCT BIOMISSION. >> THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING. WAS THAT THE SAME MEETING? TWO REEF ROCKIES REACHED DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS ABOUT -- REFEREES REACHED DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED. WAS THERE A DIFFERENCE IN WEIGHING THE CREDIBILITY OF THE BAR DOWN -- COUNSEL? >> TWO DIFFERENT REFEREES. I JUST DON'T KNOW. >> WAS IT THE FACT THAT ST. LOUIS TOOK THE INITIATIVE IN THAT MEETING THAT HE DID MOST OF THE TALKING? WAS THERE A FINDING LIKE THAT, THAT MR. RODRIQUEZ WAS PASSIVE IN THE MEETING WITH THE BAR AND MR. ST. LOUIS DID ALL THE TALKING? >> NO, I THINK THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THEY BOTH WERE IN ON THAT FULLY. >> JUSTICE QUINCE. >> ON THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING WITH MR. RODRIQUEZ AND THE ATTORNEY WHO HAD BEEN REPRESENTING HIM WITH THE MEETING OF THE BAR TESTIFIED IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. THAT'S CORRECT. AND HE WAS REPRESENTING MR. ST. LOUIS -- HE DIDN'T HAVE AN ATTORNEY AT THE TIME WHEN THEY MET AT THE BAR. >> MR. ST. LOUIS BELIEVED THAT HE WAS REPRESENTING HIM IS -- ALSO. >> DID HE TESTIFY AT MR. ST. LOUIS HEARING. >> NO HE DIDN'T. THAT WAS BY DEPOSITION. DID YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER HER QUESTION. SHE PRESENTED YOU WITH A QUESTION BEFORE. THAT'S FINE. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. WELL, SINCE WE HAVE A MINUTE. LET ME ASK DID THE BAR AT ANYTIME CONSIDER CONSOLIDATING THESE PROCEEDING BEFORE ONE REFEREE SO THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE THIS PROBLEM? >> YES, JUSTICE BELL FROM THE VERY BEGINNING IT APPEARED THAT THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. HOWEVER, WHEN WE GOT INTO THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE LEVEL IT WAS THERE FOR OVER A YEAR AND IT BECOME OBVIOUS THAT WE KNEW WHAT SHOULD BE DONE WITH DIANE FERRARA. WE HAD ALL THE INFORMATION WITH MR. FRIEDMAN. IT LOOKED LIKE IT WOULD BE YEARS BEFORE WE COULD GET THE FINALITY WITH REGARD TO MR. RODRIQUEZ AND MR. ST. LOUIS AND I FELT THAT I JUST COULD NOT DELAY THEIR RESOLUTION OF THEIR CASES FOR THAT LONG JUST TO WAIT FOR THEM. >> THAT DOESN'T EXPLAIN WHY MR. RODRIQUEZ' CASE AND MR. ST. LOUIS' CASE WEREN'T CONSOLIDATED BEFORE THE SAME BAR REFEREE. >> I HAD ASSUMED THAT THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT WOULD ASSIGN THE SAME REEFREE AND HE DID. BUT THE REFEREE DISQUALIFIED HIMSELF AND SO WE HAD ANOTHER REEFREE. >> THEY KNEW ABOUT THE PENDING CASES THAT THEY WERE. THE BAR ALERTED THE COURT AND THE CHIEF JUDGE THAT THEY WERE RELATED. >> YES, WE HAD A NOTICE OF RELATED CASES. >> I HAVE JUST IN TERMS OF THE ISSUE OF ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS PARTICULAR RESPONDENT PRESSURED THE CLIENTS IN SOCIETY LING AND WHEN THEY DIDN'T FILE A MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND COULD YOU CLARIFY WHETHER YOU FIND THAT TO BE A AGGRAVATE!!ING FACTOR IN MR. RODRIQUEZ' CASE? >> IN MR. RODRIQUEZ' CASE INSOFAR AS HE KNEW WHAT MR. ST. LOUIS WAS DOING IN THAT REGARD. >> HE'S NOT THE ONE TO FILE THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW. >>; YES, HE IS. HE'S THE PRIMARY ONE CAPABLE OF THAT IN THE WAGNER CASE IN GAINESVILLE. >> IS THAT A -- WHAT IS THE BAR'S VIEW OF THAT PARTICULAR CONDUCT? >> IT'S COERCION. COERCION TO SETTLE. [INAUDIBLE] YES, HE DID. OKAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. NACHWALTER YOU'VE EXPENDED ALL OF YOUR TIME. WHAT I WILL DO IS GIVE YOU TWO MINUTES. I WANT YOU TO ADDRESS THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE LEFT WITH REMAINING TO JUSTICE BELL, JUSTICE WELLS AND JUSTICE QUINCE. THE RESPONSES WERE CUT SHORT. TWO MINUTES? >> WE COME TO THIS. FOR THE FINDING BY A REEFREE OF NO MAL INTENT. NO FRAUD, NO MISREPRESENTATION. YOU ARE ALL ASKING ABOUT PROPORTIONALITY. THE BAR DECIDED TO FILE THESE SEPARATELY. THEY WERE FILED A YEAR APART. JUSTICE PARIENTE, YOU TALKED ABOUT THE SAME FACTS. IT'S NOT THE SAME FACTS. IT WAS DIFFERENT TRIALS. THE BAR COUNSEL WHO WAS THE KEY WITNESS FOR THE BAR IN OUR CASE THE REEFREE FOUND THE TESTIMONY NOT TO BE CREDITABLE. I WOULD LIKE TO THINK IT WAS MY SENT LATING CROSS-EXAMINATION BUT FOR WHATEVER REASON. >> WHAT IS THE MAIN DISTINCTION THEN? THE CASES ARE NOT ALIKE. WHAT IS THE MAIN DISTINCTION, ESPECIALLY IN TERMS OF FAULT? THAT IS IN TERMS OF THE CONDUCT OF THE LAWYERS? WHAT TO YOU MAINTAIN IS THE MAIN DISTINCTION. >> THE MAIN DISTINCTION IS IN MY MILE -- TRIAL ON MY RECORD WHICH IS ONLY RECORD THAT SHOULD BE RELEVANT HERE IS THIS REFEREE LISTENED TO THE EVIDENCE AND FOUND THAT MY CLIENT COMMITTED NO FRAUD, NO MISREPRESENTATION, DID NOT DECEIVE ANYBODY. FOUND HIM NOT GUILTY OF ALL THE 4-8 VIOLATION WHICH TO ME WITH THE MOST VEERIOUS VIOLATIONS. HE WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY AT THAT TRIAL BASED ON THAT EVIDENCE. YOU CAN'T TALK TO ME. I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN SOME OTHER TRIAL OR I WASN'T THERE. I HAVE NO RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINE. DIFFERENTNESS -- WITNESSES TESTIFIED THAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH THE PROPORTIONALITY CONCEPT. OR EQUATED TO SOMEONE WHO PLED IN DECENT DECREE. HOW MANY FINE HAVE WE SEEN A CRIMINAL CASE WHERE ONE GOES TO JAIL AND THE OTHER GETS OFF. THERE'S NO REPORT IN THOSE CONSENT DECREES TO COMPARE. AND YOU CAN'T COMPARE THE RECORD IN ST. LOUIS' CASE WHEN WE WEREN'T THERE AND HAD NO RIGHT TO CROSS EXAM MAINE. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME FACT OR RECORD. THE BAR CREATED THAT PROBLEM BY FILING THESE COMPLAINTS SEPARATELY A YEAR APART. THEY WERE NOT FILED AT THE SAME TIME. AND SO WE HAVE OUR RECORD AND OUR RECORD MY CLIENT WAS NOT FOUND GUILT OF ANY FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION, DECEIT. >> THE ESSENTIAL FACT, THOUGH OF ENTERING INTO THIS AGREEMENT AND NOT DISCLOSING IT TO THE CLIENT IS NOT DISPUTED BY YOU IS IT? >> THAT'S TRUE. AND SO MY CLIENT. >> ISN'T THAT THE CORE OF THE CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST YOUR CLIENT AND ACTUALLY IN THE OTHER CASES TOO? >> IS ISN'T THAT THE CORE ISSUE? >> YOU KNOW IT'S A -- THE CORE ISSUE IS THE PRACTICE RESTRICTION WHICH LEADS TO ALL THESE -- THE PRACTICE RESTRICTION. BUT THE FRAUD FINDING MATTER. BAR COUNSEL CITED HAGER AND GRANT. IN BOTH OF THOSE CASES WHICH WERE AFTER OUR CASE. I WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE TO SEE BEFORE THE EVENTS OCCURRED. BOTH OF THOSE LAWYERS IN BOTH OF THOSE CASES GOT A ONE-YEAR SUSPENSION. IN BOTH OF THOSE CASES THEY WERE FOUND GUILT OF FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION. AS A MATTER OF FACT IN GRANT THERE'S A UNANIMOUS PART THAT SAYS IF IT WAS JUST A PRACTICE RESTRICTION WITHOUT THE FRAUD THE APPROPRIATE PUNISHMENT WOULD BE A PUBLIC REPRIMAND. >> MR. NACHWALTER, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU HAVE NOW EXPENDED AGAIN BEYOND YOUR TIME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE ARGUMENT TO BOTH PARTIES. WE WILL PROCEED TO OUR NEXT CASE. THE NEXT CASE IS THE FLORIDA BAR VERSUS PAUL D. FRIEDMAN. GOOD MORNING.