IN THE SUPREME COURT IN AND FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA
NORMAN LANSON and
MERYL M. LANSON,
Petitioners,
CASE NO. SCO2-1598
THE FLORIDA BAR, an arm of
the Supreme Court of Florida
Respondent.
PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT
NORMAN LANSON and MERYL M. LANSON, petition the Court, pursuant to Article V, § 3(b)(7) of the Florida Constitution and Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(3) and 9.100, for issuance of an Extraordinary Writ to compel and/or require The Florida Bar, or anyone else to whom such Writ should be justly directed, to appoint an acceptable and independent panel (or the Court’s independent review) of Petitioners’ Grievance Complaint against attorneys Ronald C. Kopplow and Marc Cooper based upon a false and misleading determination which resulted in the Bar’s summary dismissal (failure to find probable cause).
Petitioners also request that the Court include in the Extraordinary Writ directions to The Florida Bar on how to conduct an Internal Investigation as to the manner in which the Petitioners’ Grievance Complaint had been reviewed and a perfunctory "no cause" determination made, without evaluation of this matter by a properly convened Grievance Committee.
Finally, Petitioners respectfully request that any finding of an independently appointed panel and any Internal Investigation of The Florida Bar’s conduct pertaining to the Petitioners’ Grievance Complaint against attorneys Ronald C. Kopplow and Marc Cooper, be submitted to the Court for final review and determination as to any ultimate relief to be granted to any party.
This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Article V §3(b)(7) of the Florida Constitution and Rules 9.030(a)(3) and 9.100 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Jurisdiction of The Supreme Court of Florida is also invoked based upon the Manual of Internal Operating Procedures Section II b and d and the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 3-3.1 and Rule 3-7.7. Specifically, Rule 3-7.7(e) indicates that "all applications for extraordinary writs that are concerned with disciplinary proceedings, under these rules of discipline, shall be made to The Supreme Court of Florida." Given the conduct at issue herein, the rules must be interpreted liberally to afford jurisdiction as may be necessary for full and impartial review of the at issue concerns.
The Court is called upon to remedy The Florida Bar’s failure to properly investigate and consider the Petitioners’ Grievance Complaint against attorneys Ronald Kopplow and Mark Cooper. The initial determination by Assistant Staff Counsel that a "fee dispute" was the basis for the Grievance Complaint, and therefore no probable cause existed, was a false statement which prevented the meritorious Grievance Complaint from proceeding to Grievance Committee review.
Petitioners determination to seek punishment of attorneys Kopplow and Cooper for their numerous and egregious violations of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar has been going on for more than four years. Finally, in a letter dated March 4, 2002 the Director of the Legal Division of The Florida Bar stated that he "clearly understood that the respondents (Kopplow and Cooper)" violated Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. Although numerous rules, some of which were most egregious in nature, were violated by Kopplow and Cooper, which were substantiated by written documentation provided to the Director of the Legal Division of The Florida Bar, the Director of the Legal Division of The Florida Bar made a unilateral decision to only acknowledge two violations, and disregarded the most egregious and intentional violations of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. Nevertheless, the Director’s clear understanding that rules had been violated, and that probable cause existed, should have prompted this meritorious Grievance Complaint to proceed through the Grievance Committee procedures as it should have when Petitioners’ originally filed their Grievance Complaint in June, 1998. The Grievance Committee procedures have been put into place by The Florida Bar and the Supreme Court of Florida to protect the citizens from unethical attorneys and to insure that Grievance Complaints are properly handled by a Committee made up of lawyers and non-lawyers.
This meritorious Grievance Complaint has been filed by the Petitioners, pro se. In addition, Petitioners alert the Court that an ongoing legal malpractice action has been filed against attorneys, Kopplow and Cooper by counsel. As per The Florida Bar Rule 3-7.4(e) entitled No Delay for Civil or Criminal Proceedings, an investigation shall not be deferred or suspended without the approval of the Board even though the respondent(s) is made a party to civil litigation or is a defendant or is acquitted in a criminal action, notwithstanding that either of such proceedings involves the subject matter of the investigation.
Petitioners originally filed their meritorious Grievance Complaint with The Florida Bar in June, 1998. At that time Assistant Staff Counsel determined that the Grievance was a "fee dispute." Petitioners believe that this totally false and misleading determination is in place by The Florida Bar to deprive certain citizens, of the state of Florida, their right to a fair and impartial hearing through the established Grievance process. The Florida Bar, and its dignitaries, chose not to address a meritorious Grievance Complaint because of apparent underlying motivations. From June, 1998 to present, Petitioners have been providing the dignitaries of The Florida Bar with factual information along with supporting written documentation to validate their meritorious Grievance Complaint. Nevertheless, The Florida Bar has disregarded Petitioners’ meritorious Grievance Complaint by thwarting all efforts to assure Grievance committee review.
Petitioners should have initially been afforded Grievance committee review so that a fair and impartial hearing on the facts and merits would have been presented to The Florida Bar over four years ago. More than four years later, following review of this matter by the Director of the Legal Division of The Florida Bar, a determination has been made that this matter was clearly not a "fee dispute" (as had been determined to deprive these Petitioners of a fair review). Rather, at the suggestion of the Director of the Legal Division of The Florida Bar, the matter remains pending for "monitoring" purposes until the conclusion of the malpractice case. This status is not justified and is totally adverse to Rule 3-7.4(e) entitled No Delay for Civil or Criminal Proceedings previously stated. Hence, this Extraordinary Writ appears to be the only available mechanism under the Florida statutes to rectify this injustice, which is in place to protect the citizens of this state.
The Director of the Legal Division of The Florida Bar stated in his March 4, 2002 letter that:
Various rulings of the supreme court have instructed the bar
to not utilize the disciplinary process as a substitute for other
proceedings. Acting on those instructions, the Board of Governors
has adopted a policy concerning when it will defer or decline
disciplinary action founded on allegations of malpractice.
That policy provides:
15.70 Disciplinary Action on Malpractice/Incompetence.
Both case law and the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar
allow for disciplinary sanctions to be imposed against
members of the Bar for failing to provide competent
representation. However, same do not require
imposition of sanctions in all such matters. Therefore,
it is hereby enacted as the policy of The Florida Bar
that isolated instances of malpractice (incompetent
representation) shall not be pursued, unless there
is reason to believe that the member whose competent
representation has been called into question has also
committed violations of other provisions of
the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, or
that the incompetent representation is part of
a pattern thereof, or if the member has received
a disciplinary sanction previously for malpractice
(incompetent representation).
Since the filing of Petitioners’ meritorious Grievance Complaint preceded the filing of the civil litigation by more than one year, the Board of Governors’ policy concerning when it will defer or decline disciplinary action founded on allegations of malpractice should not even apply to Petitioners’ Grievance Complaint for the timing is not in line with what the policy would mandate. The wrongful finding by The Florida Bar that this was a "fee dispute" preceded the subsequent filed malpractice case by more than one year. The Board of Governors’ policy should not have affected this meritorious Grievance Complaint because the Grievance Complaint significantly preceded the malpractice action. Petitioners have been denied a proper procedural Grievance administration hearing by an impartial and acceptable panel.
The Director of the Legal Division of The Florida Bar has chosen not to consider all the other significant violations that would make the Board of Governors’ policy irrelevant and would cause this Grievance Complaint to immediately proceed to Grievance Committee hearings. The Director of the Legal Division of The Florida Bar has attempted to usurp the power of the Grievance Committee’s purpose (and we are not suggesting this action was intentional or malicious), in place by The Florida Bar and The Supreme Court of Florida, by rendering an opinion to defer determination on this matter until the conclusion of the legal malpractice action.
The principal issue presented by this Extraordinary Writ is whether The Florida Bar, specifically the Director of the Legal Division, has determined that Rules Regulating The Florida Bar have been violated by attorneys Kopplow and Cooper, but has failed to take proper remedial action. The Director of the Legal Division has made a unilateral determination as to what is important with regard to the many ethical violations and illegal activities which transpired in Petitioners dealings with Kopplow and Cooper. Petitioners did not lodge a complaint with the Director of the Legal Division. Petitioners lodged a complaint with The Florida Bar. The Florida Bar, through its then Assistant Staff Counsel, Cynthia Lindbloom, called it a "fee dispute." The Director of the Legal Division recently determined that the initial determination was unjustified and that Rules Regulating The Florida Bar were, in fact, violated by attorneys, Kopplow and Cooper. Therefore, Petitioners’ Grievance Complaint should be handled as though the correct determination had been rendered at the initial filing of the Grievance Complaint in June, 1998, that probable cause existed and that Grievance Committee review is mandated.
Accordingly, the Court is called upon to determine whether independent review of the Grievance Complaint is mandated under the circumstances set forth in this Extraordinary Writ.
Finally, as part and parcel of the above, the Court must also determine whether The Florida Bar, by and through certain of its dignitaries and/or employees, engaged in wrongdoing, improper review of a valid grievance, due to undisclosed motivations, and whether any actions need be taken against The Florida Bar, by and through certain of its dignitaries and/or employees, as a result of such conduct.
1) A legal malpractice lawsuit against attorneys, Ronald C. Kopplow and Marc Cooper was instituted on September 7, 1999.
2) More than one year prior to filing the lawsuit, Petitioners contacted The Florida Bar requesting a brochure which explains the procedure for filing a complaint against a Florida lawyer. Shortly thereafter, on July 21, 1998, The Florida Bar was placed on notice of the unethical behavior of the Petitioners former attorneys, Kopplow and Cooper including violations of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.
3) An inquiry was then purportedly initiated by Assistant Staff Counsel, Cynthia Lindbloom, of The Florida Bar’s Miami branch.
4) On December 8, 1998, following the parties’ submissions, Ms. Lindbloom responded, without further explanation, in a two paragraph letter " that no violations as per The Florida Bar rules were committed by these attorneys."
5) Petitioners pursued numerous unavailing subsequent communications which were essentially ignored. Ultimately, on June 1, 1999, Petitioners were advised that, although this matter had never been properly sent to Grievance Committee review, that they would be receiving no further communications from The Florida Bar.
6) In spite of this response, Petitioners continued to pursue their Grievance Complaint, particularly because of the justness of their cause and the cryptic responses received in the face of
such severe ethical violations.
7) Petitioners firmly contended and continue to maintain that their former attorneys violated numerous rules of professional conduct including but not limited to the following Standards:
4-1.8 Conflict Of Interest: Prohibited Transactions (g) Settlement of Claims for Multiple Clients. A lawyer who represents 2 or more clients shall not participate in making an aggregate settlement of the claims of or against the clients, or in a criminal case an aggregated agreement as to guilty or nolo contendere pleas, unless each client consents after consultation, including disclosure of the existence and nature of all the claims or pleas involved and of the participation of each person in the settlement.
It should be noted to the Court that the respondent lawyers, Kopplow and Cooper, tried to induce their clients (Petitioners) into giving up their individual rights, now and forever, against the defendants in the underlying lawsuit. Kopplow and Cooper, numerous times, tried to force their individual clients (Petitioners) into signing the settlement papers, in their individual capacity, even though respondent lawyers, Kopplow and Cooper, knew that they failed to protect their individual clients. They were unable to accomplish this illegal and unethical act. Without any regard for their clients, and in total violation of their legal and ethical obligations to their clients, and as officers of the court, they proceeded with the settlement of the underlying lawsuit without the consent of their individual clients, and over the verbal and written objections of their individual clients.
4.3 Failure to Avoid Conflicts of Interest.
4.31 - Disbarment is appropriate when a lawyer, without the informed consent of the client(s): (a) engages in representation of a client knowing that the lawyer’s interests are adverse to the client’s with the intent to benefit the lawyer or another, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to the client; (b) simultaneously represents clients that the lawyer knows have adverse interests with the intent to benefit the lawyer or another, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client.
4.4 Lack of Diligence
4.41 - Disbarment is appropriate when: (b) a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client; or (c) a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect with respect to client matters and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client.
4.5 Lack of Competence
4.51 - Disbarment is appropriate when a lawyer’s course of conduct demonstrates that the lawyer does not understand the most fundamental legal doctrines or procedures, and the lawyer’s conduct causes injury or potential injury to a client.
4.52 - Suspension is appropriate when a lawyer engages in an area of practice in which the lawyer knows he or she is not competent, and causes injury or potential injury to a client.
4.6 Lack of Candor
4.61 Disbarment is appropriate when a lawyer knowingly or intentionally deceives a client with the intent to benefit the lawyer or another regardless of injury or potential injury.
4.62 Suspension is appropriate when a lawyer knowingly deceives a client, and causes injury or potential injury to the client.
6.0 Violations of Duties Owed to the Legal System 6.1 - False Statements, Fraud, and Misrepresentation
6.11 - Disbarment is appropriate when a lawyer: (a) with the intent to deceive the court, knowingly makes a false statement or submits a false document; or (b) improperly withholds material information, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a party, or causes a significant or potentially significant adverse effect on the legal proceeding.
6.12 Suspension is appropriate when a lawyer knows that false statements or documents are being submitted to the court or that material information is improperly being withheld, and takes no remedial action.
7.0 Violations of Other Duties Owed as a Professional
Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, and upon application of the factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services, improper communication of fields of practice, improper solicitation of professional employment from a prospective client, unreasonable or improper fees, unauthorized practice of law, improper withdrawal from representation, or failure to report professional misconduct.
7.1 Disbarment is appropriate when a lawyer intentionally engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional with the intent to obtain a benefit for the lawyer or another, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client, the public, or the legal system.
7.2 Suspension is appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system.
Subsequently, in the year 2002, after Petitioners continued to press for appropriate review of this matter, the Legal Director of The Florida Bar, even though stating that Rules Regulating the Bar had been violated by attorneys, Kopplow and Cooper, determined to rely upon the Florida Bar Board of Governors’ policy to defer any ruling on this matter until the conclusion of the malpractice action. This determination was wrongfully made because The Florida Bar Board of Governors’ policy is not applicable in this situation, based on improper timing and because numerous and severe violations of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar had been perpetrated by attorneys, Kopplow and Cooper. Accordingly, Petitioners’ only remedy is this Extraordinary Writ to review The Florida Bar’s unjust handling of this matter.
It should be clear to the Court that this matter has been wrongfully handled and shoved under the rug by The Florida Bar (labeled as a "fee dispute" when it has now been determined that was not the case — which Petitioners have vehemently argued for over four years).
Further, it should be clear to this Court that the Director of the Legal Division of The Florida Bar clearly understood that this was a meritorious Grievance Complaint, but wrongfully declined to utilize the proper procedures in place by The Florida Bar and The Supreme Court of Florida.
The acknowledgment by the Director of the Legal Division of The Florida Bar, that violations of the rules had been perpetrated by attorneys, Kopplow and Cooper, should have immediately resulted in referral of Petitioners’ Grievance Complaint for Grievance Committee review, since this matter was not handled properly in the first place.
Petitioners again bring to the Court’s attention and stress that every allegation reported to The Florida Bar, and its dignitaries, was substantiated by evidentiary documents in support of such allegations. The numerous violations and the severity of the allegations, as set forth in this Extraordinary Writ, previously should have prompted the dignitaries of The Florida Bar to have immediately instituted an investigation whereby said findings would have (and should have) afforded Petitioners the right to be heard in front of a Grievance Committee. Instead, The Florida Bar, and its dignitaries, continued to ignore Petitioners’ request for an acceptable and impartial panel to hear their Grievance Complaint.
Petitioners have been denied their due process and Petitioners civil rights have been violated. Petitioners believe that if dignitaries of The Florida Bar would have, as they should have, forwarded Petitioners’ meritorious Grievance Complaint to Committee, a "pandora’s box" would have been opened exposing underlying motivations as the reason for denying Petitioners the right to Grievance Committee intervention.
The Florida Bar, and certain dignitaries of The Florida Bar, have gone so far as to put the public in jeopardy by knowingly aiding and abetting such egregious, unethical and unlawful conduct by its members. In these times of corporate responsibility and accountability there is no greater threat to the citizens of this state than to have attorneys (the highest form of a fiduciary) who are in a position to destroy the lives of unsuspecting citizens through their dishonesty and greed.
The Florida Bar has been given self regulation powers. To date, it is clear to Petitioners, as it should be to the Court, that The Florida Bar has been using its autonomous and elitist power and position to aid and abet certain attorneys at the expense of the public’s safety and has answered to no one, not even the Supreme Court of Florida.
Based upon the above facts, pursuant to Article V, § 3(b)(7) of the Florida Constitution and Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(3) and 9.100, an Extraordinary Writ should be issued to compel and/or require The Florida Bar, or anyone else to whom such Writ should be justly directed, to appoint an acceptable and independent panel (or the Court’s independent review) of Petitioners’ Grievance Complaint against attorneys Ronald C. Kopplow and Marc Cooper.
Petitioners also request that the Court include in the Extraordinary Writ directions to The Florida Bar on how to conduct an Internal Investigation as to the manner in which the Petitioners’ Grievance Complaint had been reviewed and to make sure that safeguards are implemented so that this will not happen again.
Finally, Petitioners respectfully request that any finding of an independently appointed panel and any Internal Investigation of The Florida Bar’s conduct pertaining to the Petitioners’ Grievance Complaint against attorneys Ronald C. Kopplow and Marc Cooper, be submitted to the Court for final review and determination as to any ultimate relief to be granted to any party.
VII. REASONS THE WRIT SHOULD ISSUE
Petitioners’ request for an Extraordinary Writ should issue for a wrong was committed in 1998 by The Florida Bar. In March, 2002, the Director of the Legal Division of The Florida Bar admitted that Rules Regulating The Florida Bar had been violated by attorneys, Kopplow and Cooper. Therefore, the original dismissal of a valid and meritorious Grievance Complaint by the Petitioners should now be handled in the appropriate procedural manner, as should have been originally dispensed in 1998, and that is in place by The Florida Bar and The Supreme Court of Florida, with regard to Grievance Committee review and hearing.
Petitioners contend, The Florida Bar, through the Director of the Legal Division, determined that Rules Regulating The Florida Bar had been violated by attorneys Kopplow and Cooper.
Since Petitioners’ initial Grievance Complaint was discharged falsely and improperly, and that the subsequent determination by the Director of the Legal Division of The Florida Bar confirmed that rules had been violated by attorneys, Kopplow and Cooper, Petitioners should be afforded the proper procedural applications as would (and should) have taken place four years ago in June, 1998.
Petitioners believe, as should all citizens of the state of Florida, that the Grievance process is in place to protect the citizens of this state from unethical attorneys.
Petitioners, as should all citizens of the state of Florida, are entitled to rely on The Florida Bar’s pamphlets and other educational material for the purpose of encouraging the public to seek punishment and cessation of such practices on the part of attorneys who willfully violate, in many ways their client-attorney relationships and their duties as officers of the Court.
Petitioners, as should all citizens of the state of Florida, have been led to understand that The Florida Bar’s first duty is the protection of the public.
The Florida Bar is an arm of The Supreme Court of Florida. The Supreme Court of Florida maintains jurisdiction over every attorney in the state and over The Florida Bar, and its agents and employees. The Supreme Court of Florida has final authority over all actions of The Florida Bar.
Petitioners have exhausted every avenue to try and accomplish their goal of having an acceptable and independent panel review and make a determination on the Grievance Complaint filed against Messrs. Kopplow and Cooper; to date, this reasonable request has been denied. Such denial has been in the face of The Florida Bar’s admission that violations occurred and this matter was never a simple "fee dispute."
Since The Florida Bar is a self-regulated organization, the Court should undertake appropriate action to insure that the Petitioners’ Grievance Complaint is fully and impartially evaluated, and the conduct of The Florida Bar investigated.
WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully request that the Court comply with its duty under the law and its absolute jurisdiction over The Florida Bar, and every attorney licensed to practice therein.
WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully request and expect that The Supreme Court of Florida uphold the law under the Constitution of the State of Florida and these United States and grant Petitioners their due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
WHEREFORE, Petitioners request that an Extraordinary Writ be Issued by this Court directed to respondent, THE FLORIDA BAR, for the relief sought above, and for any other and further relief as the court may deem proper.
Respectfully submitted,
NORMAN LANSON and
MERYL M. LANSON, Pro Se.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via _____ Facsimile and/or ______ First Class Mail to : John F. Harkness,Jr., The Florida Bar, 650 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300; John Anthony Boggs, Director, Legal Division, The Florida Bar, 650 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, FL 32399- 2300, Tod Aronovitz, President, The Florida Bar, 650 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300, on this 22nd day of July, 2002.
NORMAN LANSON and
MERYL M. LANSON, Pro Se.
|
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
NORMAN LANSON and
MERYL M. LANSON,
Petitioners,
CASE NO. SCO2-1598
THE FLORIDA BAR, Respondent.
RESPONSE OF THE FLORIDA BAR TO THE PETITION
FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT
The Florida Bar here by response to the petition for extraordinary writ and says:
1. Petitioners filed disciplinary complaints against Marc Cooper and Ronald C. Kopplow by letter dated July 21, 1998. These disciplinary complaints were assigned file numbers 1999-70103 (11F) and 1999-70104 (1 1F), respectively.
2. Pursuant to the requirements of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, these disciplinary files were assignedto bar counsel for an initial investigation. Such investigation was conducted in the Miami branch office of the lawyer regulation department of The Florida Bar.
3. After investigation by bar counsel, the decision was made not to pursue further proceedings, as authorized by the relevant portions of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. 3-7.3(d) R. Regulating Fla. Bar. This decision was rendered December 8, 1998.
4. Thereafter, based on petitioner's, Meryl Lanson, continuing complaints further review was undertaken by bar counsel with the assistance of a staff auditor. Petitioners were advised, by letter dated February 24, 1999, that the further review was underway and that the file would remain closed during such review. Subsequently, petitioners were advised, by letter dated March 10, 1999, that the further review was concluded and the decision to close the file was confirmed.
5. Petitioners continued to complain.
6. After petitioners contacted counsel in the headquarters of fice ofthe department of lawyer regulation, petitioners were advised that the next level of review would be by the Miami branch of fice manager. Petitioners sought such review. The chief branch discipline counsel (the managing lawyer in a bar branch disciplinary office) reviewed the file in its entirety to determine whether bar counsel had performed an adequate investigation and if all applicable rules and procedures were followed. By letter dated April 5, 1999, petitioners were advised that this review had been concluded and that the decision to close the file appeared to be appropriate.
7. Petitioners continued to complain and again contacted counsel in the headquarters office of the department of lawyer regulation.
8. The chiefheadquarters discipline counsel reviewed the file and concluded that the decision to close the file appeared to be appropriate. Petitioners were so advised.
9. Petitioners continued to complain by contacting Edith Osman, who was at that time the president of the bar. Ms. Osman, in turn requested further review by bar staff. The bar's general counsel spoke, by telephone, with petitioners and then communicated with the bar's executive director.
10. Based on the petitioners' representations that new evidence was available, the chief headquarters discipline counsel communicated by e-mail and letter and requested petitioners to provide same. A bar staff investigator was assigned to review the new evidence.
11. A review of the new evidence indicated that it was not aufficient nor aufficiently "new" to warrant reopening the disciplinary file.
12. Petitioners continued to complain.
13. The director of the bar's legal division reviewed the handling of this investigation and engaged in communication, by letters, with petitioners and counsel who represent or represented the petitioners. Counsel in the bar's Miami branch office were interviewed, the bar investigator assigned was interviewed and expert advice in the area of bankruptcy law was obtained. A conclusion was reached and communicated to petitioners thatthe closing ofthe file was appropriate and that there was no filrther action that the bar would have in the matter. Further, the petitioners were advised that pursuant to promulgated standing board policy the substance of the matter, legal malpractice, was not a proper subject for bar disciplinary action and that the bar would review any finding in a civil tribunal concerning malpractice and determine, at that time, whether this maker could be reopened and further proceedings pursued.
14. The petitioners seek to compel The Florida Bar to conduct further investigation into their complaints. Also, the relief sought seeks to compel The Florida Bar to exercise it is prosecutorial discretion in their favor. The petition must be denied.
15. First, the petitioners twice sought this relief by way of petition for writ of mandamus and this court denied those requests. See, Norman Lanson. et al. v. The Florida Bar, SC01-299 (dismissed 3/28/01, rein. den. as untimely 6/27/01 ) and Norman Lanson. et al.. v. The Florida Bar, SCO 1-1577 (dismissed 8/30/01).
16. Second, an entity possessed of discretion in the exercise of prosecutorial authority cannot be compelled to exercise such discretion when it has the authority to decline to take the action requested. Hunter v. Solomon, 75 So.2d 803 (Flat 1954).
17. Third, petitioners seek to appeal the decision of The Florida Bar. Petitioners are not parties to the disciplinary proceedings but are complaining witnesses. Complaining witnesses in lawyer disciplinary proceedings have no right to appeal. 3-7.4(i). R. Regulating Fla. Bar.
18. Fourth, the complaints of the petitioners have been reviewed by no fewer than 5 counsel for The Florida Bar and each has concluded that the decision to close the investigations was appropriate. Notwithstanding the fact that the files are closed, the bar has advised petitioners that should there be findings in the proper arena ( the civil court) that warrant bar review, The Florida Bar will review such findings and act as is appropriate thereon.
WHEREFORE, the Florida Bar prays this court will enter an order dismissing the petition for extraordinary writ.
Respectully submitted,
John Anthony Boggs
TFB #253847
Director, Legal Division
The Florida Bar
650 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 323992300
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of this pleading was served this 30th day of July, 2002 on Norman and Meryl M. Lanson
IN THE SUPREME COURT IN AND FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA
NORMAN LANSON and
MERYL M. LANSON,
Petitioners,
CASE NO.: SC02-1598
THE FLORIDA BAR, an arm of
the Supreme Court of Florida
Respondent.
PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO RESPONSE OF THE FLORIDA BAR TO THE
PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT
Petitioners hereby reply to The Florida Bar’s Response to Petitioners’ request for Extraordinary Writ in the same chronological and sequential order as stated in The Florida Bar’s response, as follows:
1. Petitioners filed an initial Grievance against attorneys Kopplow and Cooper on July 21, 1998.
2. The Grievances were assigned to bar counsel, Cynthia Ann Lindbloom, who purportedly initiated an investigation of Petitioners’ Grievance against attorneys Kopplow and Cooper.
3. Bar counsel, Cynthia Ann Lindbloom’s decision not to pursue further proceedings was because of her determination that the Grievance involved a "fee dispute." This totally false and misleading determination caused Petitioners to pursue the Grievance process.
4. Bar counsel, Cynthia Ann Lindbloom, advised Petitioners that a staff auditor was going to review the file and report any findings. Petitioners requested the name and contact information for the staff auditor and was told by Ms. Lindbloom that such information would not be provided to Petitioners and that Petitioners had no right to that information. Petitioners were advised that the file would remain closed, continuing the inaccurate determination of a fee dispute.
5. Petitioners continued to complain that the Grievance against attorneys Kopplow and Cooper was for numerous, very serious violations of the ethical rules which had nothing to do with a fee dispute. The Petitioners came to believe that a fee dispute determination by The Florida Bar, deprived Petitioners their right to appeal such a decision.
6. Petitioners then pursued their meritorious Grievance with Arlene Sankel, Manager of the Miami Branch office of The Florida Bar. Ms. Sankel also concluded that the decision to close the file was appropriate, continuing the inaccurate determination of a fee dispute.
7. Petitioners continued to complain that the Grievance against attorneys Kopplow and Cooper was for numerous, very serious violations of the ethical rules which had nothing to do with a fee dispute. Petitioners contacted Kathi Lee Kilpatrick, Chief Disciplinary Counsel at the headquarters of The Florida Bar.
8. Ms. Kilpatrick responded that the file would remain closed continuing the inaccurate determination of a fee dispute. Further, she advised Petitioners that they would no longer be hearing from The Florida Bar. Petitioners came to believe that the underlying motivation for the inaccurate fee dispute determination might arise from the apparent conflict of interest that exists in the relationship between The Florida Bar and its self- created malpractice carrier, Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company which insured Kopplow and Cooper, and for which Kopplow was also a frequently employed defense attorney. Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company is the malpractice carrier for Kopplow and Cooper in the pending malpractice lawsuit.
9. Petitioners continued to complain that the Grievance against attorneys Kopplow and Cooper was for numerous, very serious violations of the ethical rules which had nothing to do with a fee dispute. Petitioners contacted Edith Osman, then President of The Florida Bar. Ms. Osman referred the contact to the Executive Director of The Florida Bar, Mr. Harkness. The Petitioners became aware that a serious conflict of interest might exist in the fact that Mr. Harkness, in addition to being the Executive Director of The Florida Bar, is also a member of the Board of Directors of Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company.
10. Petitioners provided additional information to The Florida Bar that was not part of the Grievance filed on July 21, 1998, as per the request of Kathi Lee Kilpatrick, in connection with an ongoing investigation being performed by John Barr, investigator for The Florida Bar.
11. After providing the additional information, The Florida Bar’s employees and officers, who had previously handled this Grievance, continued to stand by their inaccurate determination of a fee dispute.
12. Petitioners continued to complain that the Grievance against attorneys Kopplow and Cooper was for numerous, very serious violations of the ethical rules which had nothing to do with a fee dispute
13. The Legal Director of The Florida Bar, on March 4, 2002 stated that there were ethical violations clearly agreeing with the Petitioners that this matter has continuously been inaccurately described as a fee dispute. We quote "I clearly understood that the Respondents ( Kopplow and Cooper) stopped representing the individual interests of the Lansons (Petitioners) at or about the time the malpractice action was filed on behalf of the company. It was clear to me, also, that the Respondents (Kopplow and Cooper) did not specifically state their intent to cease the representation." The Legal Director also stated, in his correspondence dated March 4, 2002, that he did "not conclude that the policy mandates closure of this file because in addition to the instance of an allegation of malpractice there is an allegation of inadequate communication."
The Legal Director of The Florida Bar has admitted that at least two violations of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar have been committed by these attorneys (in fact, many more exist). From information gathered on The Florida Bar’s website with regard to disciplinary actions against attorneys, it is herein noted that the following ethical violations caused punishment to be administered by The Florida Bar to wit (Please note that this is only a small sample of the overall Florida Bar website):
Failed to diligently represent the client, adequately communicate with the client, keep the client fully informed about the matter and explain the matter to the client. Suspended
Failed to act diligently and promptly while representing a client, keep client informed about her case, comply with reasonable requests for information and respond to Bar inquiries. Disbarred
Failed to adequately communicate with client, explain the matters fully and act promptly and diligently in a probate matter. Suspended - Upon reinstatement, he will be placed on probation for two years.
Failed to competently represent her client in a dissolution of marriage action. She failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness to protect the client’s interest upon ending representation. Suspended
Failed to respond to a Bar complaint in a timely manner, produce a signed written fee agreement and provide the client with a copy of the fee agreement. Reprimanded
Failed to abide by his client’s decisions, act with reasonable diligence, keep his clients informed about their cases, explain matters fully to his clients and comply with other Bar rules of professional conduct. Reprimanded. Placed on probation for two years.
Petitioners cannot understand why the numerous, very serious violations committed by Kopplow and Cooper do not rise to the same level as those stated above which appear to be less egregious than the ones that have been acknowledged by the Legal Director of The Florida Bar.
What the Legal Director of The Florida Bar has failed or will not recognize is that, amongst other violations, the filing of a perjurious Affidavit in the Federal Bankruptcy Court for the purpose of putting their (Kopplow and Cooper) interests ahead of their unprotected clients occurred and that clearly such an unlawful act should have been punished as it has been in numerous cases but for the fact that attorneys Kopplow and Cooper were insured by Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company, and Kopplow was an employed attorney of Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company.
Petitioners believe that the underlying motivation in not punishing Kopplow and Cooper is the conflicted relationship between The Florida Bar and insured members of Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company, the Bar's created malpractice carrier, because in the cases cited where disciplinary actions were taken for less egregious acts the only common factor was that the attorneys that were punished were not insured by Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company.
14. Petitioners’ no longer seek to compel The Florida Bar to conduct further investigation into their complaints. Petitioners respectfully request that The Supreme Court of Florida conduct an independent review and/or appoint an independent and impartial panel to hear Petitioners’ meritorious Grievance, and fully investigate how this matter was wrongfully closed as a "fee dispute."
15. The Petitioners twice sought relief by way of Petition for Writ of Mandamus. The Petitioners believe that The Supreme Court of Florida denied those requests based on inaccurate and misleading information provided to them by the officers and employees of The Florida Bar. Indeed, contrary to the misrepresentations of The Florida Bar, The Supreme Court of Florida has full and complete authority over The Florida Bar and its agents and employees.
The Legal Director of The Florida Bar in his March 4, 2002 communication confirmed
that probable cause did exist that violations of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar had been committed by Messrs. Kopplow and Cooper yet nothing has been done to protect the Petitioners from Kopplow and Cooper’s wrongdoing by The Florida Bar.
The Petitioners request that this Extraordinary Writ cause the Grievance as filed on July 21,1998 to be presented now to an appropriate body for review and determination in that the original inaccurate determination of a fee dispute has deprived the Petitioners of a fair hearing on this matter before an impartial body.
16. When an entity possessed of discretion abuses their right of discretion by offering misleading and inaccurate determinations they should forfeit their protected position and should be removed from the process of hearing and offering opinions with regard to matters upon which they ruled in such an unfair fashion. Motivated by conflicted relationships, an entity having such power will most probably act in ways which are harmful to the interests they are determined to protect.
17. The Extraordinary Writ is the only remedy which the citizens of Florida can use in regard to their inability to participate actively in the disciplinary process. The Petitioners consider the use of such a Writ as time consuming and objectionable in light of the Supreme Court’s considerable workload in other matters.
18. The Petitioners have doggedly pursued punishment of the unethical attorneys, Kopplow and Cooper, in this case in spite of the numerous obstructive barriers placed before them by at least five employees of The Florida Bar. The Petitioners have come to believe that a conspiratorial cover up has prevented their meritorious Grievance from a proper hearing for more than four years.
Whether the allegations ultimately would prevail, certainly, The Supreme Court of Florida must investigate, given the serious nature of the Petitioners’ assertions and the evidence supporting Petitioners’ claims.
The Legal Director of The Florida Bar has concurred that ethical violations have occurred and yet no proper hearing was pursued. The basis upon which this further obstruction is founded is completely without merit and has been stated inaccurately by the Director of the Legal Division of The Florida Bar. There are several important issues the Petitioners wish to resolve. The first is that attorneys regardless of whether or not a civil malpractice action has been brought against them shall be punished in accordance with the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. Secondly, there should be no delay in the hearing of the Grievance as set forth in the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. Third, no individual employee or officer of the Florida Bar should have the right to make determinations which should properly be made by a Board Grievance Committee established for that purpose, unless, of course, the claim is utterly devoid of merit and does not include claims of multiple ethical violations.
Finally, The Florida Bar’s response suggests the prior investigation was well based. Yet, the Legal Director of The Florida Bar’s conclusion is otherwise. The Florida Bar fails to set forth a single fact to establish that its prior "investigation" was well based or meritorious in any way, and was anything other than a disregard of Petitioners’ Grievance. For this reason alone, The Supreme Court of Florida must see the merit of Petitioners’ claims, and the great service a full and complete investigation will serve to the people of Florida.
WHEREFORE, Petitioners request that an Extraordinary Writ be Issued by this Court directed to Respondent, THE FLORIDA BAR, for the relief sought above, and for any other and further relief as the court may deem proper.
Respectfully submitted,
NORMAN LANSON and
MERYL M. LANSON, Pro Se.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via _____ Facsimile and/or ______ First Class Mail to : John F. Harkness,Jr., The Florida Bar, 650 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300; John Anthony Boggs, Director, Legal Division, The Florida Bar, 650 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300, Tod Aronovitz, President, The Florida Bar, 650 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300, on this ___ day of August, 2002.
|
IN THE SUPREME COURT IN AND FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA
NORMAN LANSON and
MERYL M. LANSON,
Petitioners,
CASE NO. SCO2-1598
THE FLORIDA BAR, an arm of
the Supreme Court of Florida
Respondent.
PETITIONERS’ AFFIDAVIT SUPPLYING SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION IN SUPPORT OF
PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT
Petitioners have obtained knowledge of attorneys who have recently been disciplined by The Supreme Court of Florida. This information is also located on The Florida Bar’s website.
1. According to public information, an attorney has been disbarred by The Supreme Court of Florida for unethical conduct which included representing clients with conflicting interests, failing to follow a client’s decisions, failing to act diligently in representing a client and failing to explain a matter so a client could make informed decisions.
2. Petitioners’ have been pursuing the punishment of attorneys for more than four years with The Florida Bar and The Supreme Court of Florida. The attorneys, Ronald C. Kopplow and Marc Cooper, also represented clients with conflicting interests, failed to follow a client’s decisions, failed to act diligently in representing a client, and failed to explain a matter so a client could make informed decisions. These were just a few of the many ethical violations committed by attorneys, Kopplow and Cooper, yet The Florida Bar and The Supreme Court of Florida has yet to pursue disciplinary proceedings which should, as dictated by precedent, also result in disbarment of attorneys.
3. In addition, as previously stated in the Extraordinary Writ, attorneys Kopplow and Cooper provided perjured Affidavits to a Federal Bankruptcy Court in order to place themselves in a position to collect fees. This act alone should have prompted The Florida Bar and The Supreme Court of Florida to immediately take the necessary steps to protect the public from such heinous behavior by members of The Florida Bar.
4. The Court should pay special attention that Kopplow and Cooper’s conflict of interest, and the filing of perjured Affidavits, amongst many other ethical violations, resulted in the financial ruin of their clients, the destruction of a fifty year old Florida business, and the unemployment of approximately two hundred Florida residents.
Respectfully submitted,
NORMAN LANSON and
MERYL M. LANSON, Pro Se.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via _____ Facsimile and/or ______ First Class Mail to : John F. Harkness,Jr., The Florida Bar, 650 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300; John Anthony Boggs, Director, Legal Division, The Florida Bar, 650 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300, Tod Aronovitz, President, The Florida Bar, 650 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300, on this ___ day of December, 2002.
|
