CASE NO.: SC01-1577

NORMAN LANSON and
MERYL M. LANSON,
Petitioners,

v.

THE FLORIDA BAR, an arm of
the Supreme Court of Florida
Respondent.

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 a Writ of Mandamus 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 against attorneys Ronald C. Kopplow and Marc Cooper based upon the severe conflict of interest which resulted in the Bar’s summary dismissal (failure to find probable cause) and the failure to properly consider and evaluate the grievance because of underlying motivations based upon a conflict of interest. Petitioners also request that the Court include in the Writ of Mandamus directions to The Florida Bar on how to conduct an Internal Investigation as to the manner in which the Petitioners’ grievance 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 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 indicates that "[a]ll 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 against attorneys Ronald Kopplow and Mark Cooper. The Bar claims (as does The Supreme Court’s in-house counsel) that there is no mechanism for such review when The Florida Bar "failed" to find probable cause. This cannot be correct under the circumstances presented herein. The Florida Bar, as an agency of The Supreme Court, had an undisclosed conflict of interest between the respondent attorneys, the Bar and The Florida Bar’s created professional liability insurance carrier, Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company.

Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company is the underlying insurance carrier providing coverage to the respondent attorneys in the underlying professional liability lawsuit, in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida styled Norman Lanson and Meryl Lanson v Ronald C. Kopplow, Esq., Kopplow & Flynn, P.A, a Florida, Professional Association, Mark Cooper, Esq., and Cooper & Wolfe, P.A., a Florida Professional Association, wherein damages in excess of Fourteen Million Dollars ($14,000,000), plus interest, are sought and Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company provides coverage to each of the attorneys in the amounts of $1,000,000 and $5,000,000, respectively. Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company has failed to settle the claims when, in Petitioners’ view, under all of the fact and circumstances, the insurer could and should have done so in the best interests of the insured. All bad faith causes of action have been preserved.

The severe conflict of interest, created by The Florida Bar’s interest in Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company, resulting in the Bar’s failure to investigate Petitioners’ claims, or highly cursory glance, at best, clearly requires, this matter be reviewed by The Supreme Court of Florida. This review, by an independent panel, or The Supreme Court Justices, sitting as such a panel, is mandated to insure the integrity of The Florida Bar, the impartiality of The Supreme Court of Florida, and the due process rights to which the citizens of this State are entitled.

The principal issue presented by this Petition for Writ of Mandamus is whether, where, The Florida Bar has determined that a grievance is without probable cause such a finding may be reviewed by The Supreme Court of Florida where a severe non-waivable conflict of interest between The Florida Bar and the respondents is presented and which has not been disclosed.

Additionally, the Court is called upon to determine whether independent review of the grievance is mandated under the circumstances set forth in this Petition.

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, failure to disclose conflicts of interest and improper review of a valid grievance, (and certainly one which should not have been dismissed at the administrative level and before Grievance Committee review) 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.

Petitioners’ were advised by Cynthia Ann Lindbloom, Assistant Staff Counsel, Miami Branch Office of The Florida Bar, that their grievance was dismissed at the administrative level as having no probable cause and claiming it was simply a fee dispute. Petitioners’ were outraged by this totally false and grossly misleading response to their grievance which compelled Petitioners’ to investigate the root of such a response. It was during this investigation that Petitioners’ discovered that, not only were attorneys Kopplow and Cooper insured by The Florida Bar’s created malpractice insurance carrier, but that Kopplow was employed, as a defense attorney, by Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company, representing other member insured’s of Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company who were being sued for legal malpractice.

Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company is owned by its insured members. The insured members elect the Board of Directors of Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company. The Executive Director of The Florida Bar has been elected as a member of the Board of Directors of Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company. The Executive Director of The Florida Bar, a significant part of the disciplinary process, is also a significant part of the malpractice claims. Often grievances become the basis for malpractice claims when damage to the client has been determined. The relationship between The Florida Bar and Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company poses an inherent and direct conflict of interest because, in essence, "the fox is guarding the henhouse." That is, The Florida Bar is placed in the position of favorably regulating the conduct of the insured’s of Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company with which it has an affinity of interest.

At issue is whether The Florida Bar has conspired (or created the appearance of impropriety that such conduct may be occurring) with Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company to deprive Petitioners’ of their civil rights and due process under the law with regard to the filing of their meritorious grievance. In addition, at issue is whether The Florida Bar has conspired (or created the appearance of impropriety that such conduct may be occurring) with Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company to deprive Petitioners’ of immediate financial restitution of the damages that Petitioners’ suffered by the negligence of attorneys Ronald Kopplow and Marc Cooper, as per the report provided to Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company by the certified public accounting firm, Fiske & Co. Of further concern is whether The Florida Bar and Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company knowingly and without concern for the financial and emotional hardship that Petitioners’ continue to endure conspired (or created the appearance of impropriety that such conduct may be occurring) to deprive the Petitioners’ of what is rightfully and legally theirs.

The underlying background facts are set forth in the Complaint for professional negligence against Kopplow and Cooper (Appendix 1), and in the underlying suit styled Baron’s Store’s, Inc., Plaintiff v. Morrison, Brown, Argiz & Company, P.A. a Florida Professional Association, Albert Morrison, Jr., Antonio L. Argiz, and Manual Rodriguez, Jr., Defendants, in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, Case No. 95-22509CA30 (the "Morrison Brown Litigation"). (Appendix 2)

This Petition is before the Court because of Petitioners’ unfortunately mis-guided total faith and trust in the representatives of the legal system, specifically attorneys Ronald Kopplow and Marc Cooper, whom Petitioners hired both corporately and individually to protect their rights in the State Court litigation against Morrison, Brown, Argiz & Co. Morrison, Brown, Argiz & Co.’s negligence over all the years that they performed certified audits destroyed Petitioners business and their family’s financial security. Morrison, Brown, Argiz & Co. was so obvious in their discovery questioning that the only defense they had was to attack Petitioners’ in the most demeaning, demoralizing treatment of Petitioners’ personal life even inferring on several occasions that their beautiful son was a bastard son of the embezzler, David Peterson. Instead of dealing with their gross negligence, which was the issue, they tried their hardest to distract Petitioners’ in a most inhumane fashion all with the tacit approval of their former attorneys, Ronald Kopplow and Marc Cooper.

Petitioners’ put the utmost confidence and trust in Kopplow and. Cooper over almost five years. At Kopplow’s urgence and suggestion, Petitioners’ risked all of their personal assets to help keep Baron’s afloat until Kopplow would try the case in court. Petitioners’ did everything in their power to cut expenses, personally guarantee lines of credit on behalf of the corporation and approach each aspect of their business and personal lifestyle in the most conservative fashion until the time came for Petitioners’ to have justice in the courtroom. Kopplow would tell Petitioners repeatedly "how good it would look in front of the jury that the well-being of our company was always first and foremost."

Kopplow and Cooper were well aware from the beginning of their engagement , in January 1994, that the loss of the millions of dollars of embezzled monies had a devastating effect on Petitioners’ financial situation both corporately and personally, since they were a Sub- chapter S corporation which Mr. Kopplow would constantly say "was one and the same" as Petitioners’ individually. Kopplow also constantly reiterated that Petitioners "personally were the corporation since all profits passed through to their personal tax return." In essence the ultimate recipient of the State Court action should have been Petitioners’, individually, but was not due to the unethical conduct engaged in by Kopplow and Cooper.

Petitioners’ met with Kopplow on numerous occasions to discuss some concerns of how he and Cooper were proceeding with the case. Kopplow would provide Petitioners’ plausible answers and prior to filing for bankruptcy protection under Chapter XI, he would constantly assure Petitioners’ that "they would be made whole again." When Petitioners’ had no other choice but to file Chapter XI, Kopplow recommended Sonya Salkin as the bankruptcy attorney to be engaged. He attended the very first meeting with Petitioners’ at Ms. Salkin’s office in July 1997. At that time Petitioners’ again asked Kopplow to amend the complaint as per the Authority to Represent (See Appendix 3). His response was "you [Petitioners’ and Barons]are one and the same and there will be enough money from the proceeds of the lawsuit that will trickle down to you that will make you whole again." Petitioners’ were promised by Sonya Salkin, Kopplow and Cooper "at worst a debt-free company."

When Kopplow and Cooper were appointed Special Counsel to the Bankruptcy Court (to pursue the State Court action) they misrepresented that they held no interest adverse to the estate and supplied documents to erroneously so reflect (Appendix 4). In fact, they deceived the Court by not disclosing to the Court that the Lansons, individually, were their clients too, in order to protect their fees, rather than to represent the interests of their clients.

Petitioner also objected to Kopplow that Alan Glist was named Chairman of the Creditor’s Committee at a Creditor’s meeting held at Mr. Glist’s office on Tuesday, January 13, 1998 because Mr. Glist’s accounting firm, the Defendant in the State Court action, was Morrison, Brown, Argiz & Co. Petitioners’ felt this was a conflict of interest and that his relationship with the Defendants in Baron’s lawsuit was adverse to Petitioners’ interests. Kopplow said he "would not embarrass Mr. Glist in front of the other creditors" and that he felt Mr. Glist would "only help us" in pursuing the lawsuit to trial. The only thing Mr. Glist did was to help himself to Baron’s.

At the same January 13, 1998 meeting, which in fact was for the purpose of getting the creditors to support Petitioners’ in a remand from Bankruptcy Court to State Court, Kopplow laid out the merits of the case of which all in attendance were transfixed. He showed what he called the "Smoking Gun" which was a work-paper from Morrison, Brown, Argiz & Co. titled "Items to be Removed from Baron’s Work-papers" - which instructed the change, tampering with and destruction of certain items from the case in litigation. Petitioners’ received the support of the creditors at that meeting which Mr. Kopplow proudly exclaimed - "With the actual loss and damages we will get $10 million."

The attorneys in this case had no regard for the true injured parties, the Petitioners. The Petitioners’ concluded that Kopplow and Cooper saw a recovery from an insurance company and they could not get the money out of the policy and into their own pockets fast enough. Petitioners’ believe it is called the "Gravy Train" where all attorneys and professionals get on board. It is amazing to Petitioners’ that the competent businessman who hired and paid for professionals to do jobs of which he had no expertise to safeguard his business and his life, walks away with absolutely nothing - in fact loses everything he worked so hard to protect.

Kopplow even suggested that if Petitioners’ could find a way to "get the creditors off our backs" it would be so much easier to proceed to trial. As a result, Petitioner, Meryl Lanson, spoke with Kopplow about mortgaging Petitioners’ home. With Kopplow’s knowledge she met with Bill Aber and Paul Chandler of Bank Atlantic on Tuesday, March 3, 1998 to see if there was a creative way of helping Petitioners’ to pay off the Barons creditors. Petitioners’ were willing to put up the only asset they had left, their home, as partial collateral. Fortunately, Bill Aber was considerate enough of Petitioners’ plight and the risk that they were being asked to undertake. Bill Aber said "I will not let you do that Mrs. Lanson. It would not be in your best interests." Based upon their conduct, such concerns never entered the thinking of Kopplow and Cooper. Petitioners’ believe that Kopplow’s suggestion to find a way to "get the creditors off our backs" and his knowledge that Petitioners would be willing to mortgage their home to accomplish Kopplow’s suggestion was intentionally to cause them total financial ruin, virtually becoming destitute, therefore making it almost impossible, to emotionally and financially obtain the help that they would need if they were to become knowledgeable and aware of the severe unethical conduct and illegal steps that Kopplow and Cooper took to achieve financial victory for themselves at the total financial destruction of their clients.

Petitioners’ were squeezed by all sides and mislead, misrepresented and betrayed by the very persons who should have been protecting them, their attorneys, Kopplow and Cooper, so that they could extract a fee of which they were not deserving. On the very day, March 23, 1998, that Kopplow, according to Court Order, should have been ready and prepared to proceed to trial, Kopplow instructed Sonya Salkin to accept the $2.4 million, formulate a plan and he "did not care" of the consequences. Ms. Salkin turned to them at that moment and said "your attorney just sold you out." Although Kopplow and Cooper claimed that they never represented Meryl Lanson, individually, Kopplow prepared an Authorization for Settlement on behalf of and to the benefit of the Morrison Brown defendants, whereby he asked that the Petitioners (the Lansons) relinquish their individual rights to pursue any cause of action against the Morrison Brown defendants, even though Kopplow and Cooper failed to name and protect their individual clients in the underlying lawsuit.

On that same day, Ms. Salkin advised Petitioners’ that Kopplow and Cooper had either conferred with or retained counsel of their own to "protect their fees." A few days or so later Ms. Salkin said it would be impossible to formulate a plan in the best interests of the Debtor and all concerned. She advised Kopplow to try this case as promised, to which he replied "I will not and I will only lien it for my fees." That precise moment will stay etched in Petitioners’ minds forever - the moment Kopplow abandoned them. He pressured Petitioners’ and confused them into believing that if Petitioners’ did not approve the settlement they would be personally liable to the bank for the line of credit. This was untrue since the bank had more than enough inventory as collateral against the line of credit. That would have made it impossible for Alan Glist to end up with the company. Petitioners’ were coerced and forced into signing the settlement but would only do so on behalf of Baron’s, and not individually, because Bankruptcy counsel, Sonya Salkin, said they had to and if they didn’t it would be settled by the creditors without Petitioners’ consent. Upon hearing of Kopplow’s decision not to try the case, creditor’s counsel called Kopplow a "great poker player." To add insult to injury, the last comment that Kopplow made to Petitioners’ was unbelievably "I guess you are going to have to start all over and just imagine if David [Peterson]didn’t embezzle the money you would have had to personally pay the taxes on it."

It is beyond belief that Morrison, Brown, Argiz & Co. continues in business unscathed by a public trial of these egregious circumstances. The insurance company saved millions on a policy that was there to protect anyone injured as a result of their insured’s negligence; the Chairman of the Creditor’s Committee, who was the client of the Morrison Brown defendants, and a former client of Kopplow, took over the company; and the attorneys were fully compensated. The only ones who were punished again were the victims who sacrificed it all and lost virtually everything for the sake of justice. Petitioners’ still refuse to believe that the system will fail them. Obviously, a piece of them still has enough faith in the system and that is why they stand before this Court - for their right to see justice served.

Seven years have been taken from Petitioners’ never to be replaced. This was Petitioners’ time when they could have concentrated and should have been concentrating on the needs of their business, child, family atmosphere and the community. For the Court to allow Ronald Kopplow and Marc Cooper not to be subject to a proper review of their conduct would be truly unjust.

1) In June, 1998 Petitioners’ consulted with attorneys with regard to a potential legal malpractice lawsuit against attorneys, Ronald C. Kopplow and Marc Cooper. Suit was subsequently instituted.

2) After being advised that what Petitioners’ were pursuing was a viable action against their former attorneys, Petitioners’ also concluded that separate and apart from the lawsuit, The Florida Bar should be made aware of the unethical behavior of their former attorneys.

3) Petitioners’ contacted The Florida Bar requesting a brochure which explains the procedure for filing a complaint against a Florida lawyer. (Appendix 5)

4) Petitioners’ read the brochure in addition to the entire Florida Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions. Upon review, Petitioners’ concluded that Ronald Kopplow and Mark Cooper were in violation of several Standards as imposed by The Florida Bar.
5) On July 21, 1998, Petitioners’ filed a Complaint as instructed by The Florida Bar’s brochure. (Appendix 6 )

6) An inquiry was then purportedly initiated by Assistant Staff Counsel, Cynthia Lindbloom, of The Florida Bar’s Miami branch.

7) In August 1998, the attorneys in question responded to Petitioners’ Complaint. (Appendix 7 )

8) On September 14, 1998 Petitioners’ hand delivered to The Florida Bar, Miami branch, their reply to their former attorneys responses. (Appendix 8)

9) On December 8, 1998, 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." (Appendix 9) The Florida Bar has created a stop-gap measure to deprive the citizens of this State their due process rights by informing the citizens that they have no right to appeal a staff counsel’s decision, even when that decision is based on absolute "spin" and "untruths." This unacceptable and ludicrous statement is further indication of a coverup that exists within The Florida Bar, which includes, its relationship with Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company.

10) Petitioners’ then contacted Ms. Kathi Lee Kilpatrick, Assistant Director - Lawyer Regulations in Tallahassee, Florida. Ms. Kilpatrick explained the chain of command within The Florida Bar and suggested Petitioners’ contact Ms. Arlene Sankel, Branch Manager of The Florida Bar’s Miami office.

11) On March 22, 1999 Petitioners’ sent Ms. Sankel a letter as per Ms. Kilpatrick’s suggestion. (Appendix 10)

12) On April 5, 1999 Ms. Sankel responded to Petitioners’. Ms. Sankel advised Petitioners’ "that The Florida Bar Board of Governors recently approved an amendment to its standing board policy stating that in the absence of specified exceptions, isolated instances of malpractice and/or incompetent representation will not be pursued under the disciplinary system". (Appendix 11) Nowhere in the brochure "Filing a Complaint against a Florida Attorney" does it mention the Board of Governors "new policy". As a matter of fact it clearly states that any civil remedies should be pursued through the Court’s and that a disciplinary action will not provide for restitution. Petitioners’ have filed a civil lawsuit against these attorneys which according to The Florida Bar is separate and distinct from filing a complaint against a Florida Attorney. To quote directly from The Bar’s own pamphlet, section - What is the Purpose of the Lawyer Grievance System?, Paragraph 3, "Further, any loss the client may have sustained as a result of the matter involved cannot be recovered through disciplinary proceedings. The lawyer may be punished, but if the complaining person has suffered a financial or property loss, that person’s rights must be enforced by usual legal methods against the person responsible for the loss." (Appendix 12)

13) As per Ms. Kilpatrick’s information regarding the "chain of command," Petitioners’ then forwarded the entire binder submitted to The Florida Bar (approximately 500 pages spanning from July 21, 1998 to May 14, 1999) to Ms. Kilpatrick, Assistant Director - Lawyer Regulations, Mr. Bill Hendrix, Director - Lawyer Regulations, Mr. Tony Boggs, Director - Legal Division and Mr. John Harkness, Executive Director of The Florida Bar. Petitioners sent each binder individually to their Tallahassee office and received signed receipts of delivery. (Appendix 13)

14) Petitioners’ letter to Kilpatrick, dated June 1, 1999, was responded to by Kilpatrick in correspondence dated June 18, 1999, informing Petitioners’ "that [you]will no longer be receiving any communication with regard to this Complaint from The Florida Bar". (Appendix 14)

15) In spite of Ms. Kilpatrick’s response, Petitioners’ continued to pursue their Complaint, particularly because of the justness of their cause and the cryptic responses received in the face of such severe ethical violations. In so doing, Petitioners discovered that the Bar failed to disclose, at the inception of Petitioners’ complaint, The Florida Bar’s absolute direct conflict in ruling upon this disciplinary action based upon its relationship with Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company, a NABRICO insurance company (National Association of Bar Related Insurance Companies). (Appendix 15) Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company is the insurance carrier created and formed by The Florida Bar. (Appendix 16)

16) The Florida Bar interfered with Petitioners’ civil rights by not disclosing to them, inter alia, that their former attorneys are not only insured by Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company, the company "created and formed by The Florida Bar" but that. Kopplow also had been employed as a defense attorney for Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company, representing attorneys in legal malpractice actions.

17) Petitioners’ firmly contend 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 that attorneys, Kopplow and Cooper, settled the underlying lawsuit over the written objections of their individual clients. In order to make for a "tidy little package."

Kopplow and Cooper attempted to induce their clients into giving up their individual rights for recourse then and forever, all in favor of the defendants in the underlying litigation. Kopplow was unable to accomplish his goal and without any concern for the protection of his clients, and in total disregard of his ethical obligations and the law proceeded with the settlement of the underlying litigation. In fact, the Bankruptcy Court Judge suggested that the Petitioners file a legal malpractice claim against their attorneys.

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.

It must be noted that every allegation reported to The Florida Bar, and its dignitaries, was substantiated by evidentiary documents in support of said allegations. Because of the egregious allegations as set forth in this Petition for Writ of Mandamus, dignitaries of The Florida Bar should 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. Petitioners meritorious grievances were dismissed at an administrative level by an Assistant Staff Counsel whereby Petitioners were denied their due process and whereby 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 to Committee, the severe conflict of interest that The Florida Bar, itself, is engaged in would have been disclosed and would have caused so much upheaval within The Florida Bar so as to upset the incestuous and inherent conflict of interest relationship that they have been enjoying and benefitting from. The Florida Bar’s intentional dismissal of a valid and meritorious grievance and the arrogant nature in which The Florida Bar ignored Petitioners’ requests led the Petitioners to believe that The Florida Bar was hoping that Petitioners would end their journey for justice. Such is not the case and will not be the case until Petitioners are granted their due process under the law and that truth and justice prevails above all else.

18) On January 14, 2000 Petitioners’ wrote to the Supreme Court. Petitioners’ apprized the Court of the conflict of interest between The Florida Bar and its created malpractice insurance company, Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company. Petitioners’ also apprized the Court that the respondent attorneys, Ronald C. Kopplow and Marc Cooper were insured by Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company and that Mr. Kopplow was employed as a defense specialist by Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company. (Appendix 17)

19) On January 19, 2000, The Court responded to Petitioner, Meryl Lanson, by refusing to directly involve itself in this matter. (Appendix 18)

20) On January 24, 2000, Petitioners’ wrote back to The Court because The Florida Supreme Court is the governing body of The Florida Bar. (Appendix 19) The Petitioners’ were of the opinion that The Florida Supreme Court’s duty should be to initiate a full investigation when allegations of misconduct are presented against its agency, The Florida Bar. Petitioners’ respectfully requested the right to have an acceptable and impartial panel review the disciplinary action of Ronald C. Kopplow and Marc Cooper based on the inherent and direct conflict of interest of The Florida Bar with regard to its relationship with The Florida Bar’s created malpractice insurance carrier, Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company, the insurer of their former attorneys. Petitioners’ believed it was within The Court’s power and the jurisdiction of The Supreme Court of Florida to have granted and/or investigated Petitioners’ request. No Response from The Court was received.

21) On February 18, 2000, Petitioners’ again wrote to The Court respectfully requesting a response as to granting the request for an acceptable and impartial panel to review the disciplinary action of Ronald C. Kopplow and Marc Cooper. (Appendix 20) No response was received.

22) On March 7, 2000, Petitioners’ again wrote to The Court respectfully requesting that a response to their numerous requests.(Appendix 21) No response was received.

23) On March 14, 2000, Petitioners’ wrote to John Harkness, Jr., Executive Director of The Florida Bar, Tony Boggs, Director, Legal Division of The Florida Bar, Bill Hendrix, Director, Lawyer Regulations, The Florida Bar, Kathi Lee Kilpatrick, Assistant Director, Lawyer Regulations, The Florida Bar, Arlene Sankel, Branch Staff Counsel, Miami, The Florida Bar, Cynthia Ann Lindbloom, Assistant Staff Counsel, The Florida Bar with copies to The Supreme Court of Florida, Edith Osman, President of The Florida Bar and Herman J. Russomanno, President-elect of The Florida Bar ( Appendix 22). Petitioners wrote to fully apprize these dignitaries of Petitioners’ position. Petitioners believed that they were ethically mishandled by attorneys Ronald C. Kopplow and Marc Cooper and though Petitioners’ reported valid ethical violations to The Florida Bar and to The Supreme Court of Florida, indeed, the dismissal of the grievance as a mere "fee dispute" irrefutably demonstrated the conflict of interest in reviewing this valid claim. Petitioners’ were ignored for reasons other than the validity of the claims against their former attorneys and all of them with the power to do so all chose not to pursue and downplay the need for action as would be their duty. Petitioners’ apprized of their awareness that the reason that this may be occurring could be stemming from Kopplow’s relationship with Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company, as an insured and an employee and/or agent thereof, and that company’s relationship with The Florida Bar. Petitioners’ respectfully requested the appropriate action. No Response was received.

24) On March 21, 2000, Petitioners’ again wrote to the Court reiterating Petitioners’ position and again respectfully requesting that the Court grant Petitioners’ request of an impartial and acceptable panel to hear Petitioners’ grievance and that Petitioners’ remained ready, willing and able to provide the Court once again, at a moments notice, with all the evidence and facts to substantiate Petitioners’ allegations. (Appendix 23) No response was received.

25) On April 17, 2000, Petitioners’ again wrote to the Court advising that Petitioners’ believed their civil rights had been violated. (Appendix 24) Petitioners’ believed that they were entitled to due process under the law. Petitioners’ again implored the Court to make sure that Petitioners’ were properly heard and that their rights and the rights of the public at large were protected. Again, no response from the Court was received.

26) On May 8, 2000, Petitioners’ wrote to Governor Jeb Bush and Attorney General Bob Butterworth advising them of the steps that Petitioners’ had previously taken with The Florida Supreme Court and The Florida Bar. Petitioners’ advised them that Petitioners’ believed the lack of response supported what Petitioners’ believed was a coverup of The Florida Bar’s undisclosed conflict of interest in their relationship with Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company. Petitioners’ asked for them to intervene.

27) On May 9, 2000, Petitioner, Meryl Lanson, spoke over the telephone with Mark Criser, Staff Attorney at The Supreme Court of Florida. Mr. Criser’s immediate supervisor is the Supreme Court Justice. Petitioners’ followed up that telephone conversation with a letter dated May 11, 2000. Petitioners’ again stated Petitioners’ belief that Petitioners’ were entitled to an impartial hearing of their grievance. Petitioners’ also requested telephone contact with the Court to verify that one or more Justices received the correspondence and to confirm that the Justice(s) read the correspondence and personally signed the one and only response letter to Petitioners’. Mr. Criser responded "that is not going to happen." Mr. Criser also curiously advised Petitioner, Meryl Lanson, in her telephone conversation with him that "The Supreme Court of Florida has no jurisdiction over the Florida Bar." Petitioners’ asked Mr. Criser for written documentation of that but he refused Petitioners’ request. Petitioners’ again requested, as a resident of the State of Florida, direct contact with the Justices and the reasons why such a request is not possible. Petitioners’ also again requested an impartial hearing of Petitioners’ grievance. Petitioners’ also requested an explanation as to why a conflict of interest does not exist for The Florida Bar to determine Petitioners’ right to a hearing before a Grievance Committee based on Petitioners’ request to them and their conflict of interest with regard to the relationship between The Florida Bar’s created malpractice insurance company and that relationship to the respondent attorney, Ronald C. Kopplow, an insured and an employee or agent of that insurance company.

28) On May 22, 2000, Petitioners’ wrote to Chief Justice Harding, Justice Charles T. Wells, Justice Harry Lee Anstead, Justice R. Fred Lewis, Justice Barbara J. Pariente, Justice Peggy A. Quince, Justice Leander J. Shaw, Governor Jeb Bush, Attorney General Bob Butterworth with copies to Insurance Commissioner Bill Nelson, Clerk of The Supreme Court, Tom Hall and Staff Attorney at The Supreme Court, Mark Criser. (Appendix 25). Petitioners’ again reiterating Petitioners’ position and respectfully requesting a hearing in front of an acceptable and impartial Grievance Committee, a request that Petitioners’ had been making for almost two (2) years.

29) On May 22, 2000, Petitioners’ received a letter from Tom Hall, Clerk of The Supreme Court of Florida. (Appendix 26) In that letter Mr. Hall refused to respond to Petitioners’ request for how to proceed further with Petitioners’ grievance and advised Petitioners’ that he was not authorized to provide legal advice. He also stated that The Supreme Court of Florida will not investigate a complaint concerning the failure of The Florida Bar to find probable cause. He further stated that a complaining witness is not party to the disciplinary proceedings and does not have the right of appeal. In the absence of a recommendation of discipline by the Bar, the case is final and no investigation will be ordered by the Court. Under the circumstances of the severe conflict at issue here, this certainly cannot be correct. It is apparent by Mr. Hall’s response that the Court was provided with false and misleading information by The Florida Bar with regard to this meritorious grievance.

30) On May 25, 2000 Petitioners’ wrote back to Tom Hall quite disappointed and disillusioned with his response to her requests. (Appendix 27) Petitioners’ specifically highlighted his response "that The Supreme Court of Florida will not investigate a complaint concerning the failure of The Florida Bar to find probable cause." Petitioners’ expressed their total lack of understanding and astonishment that The Supreme Court of Florida would not investigate a finding of their agency even though they are now aware of the undisclosed conflict of interest between the respondent attorney, The Florida Bar and The Florida Bar’s created malpractice insurance carrier, Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company. Petitioners’ specifically took umbrage to Mr. Hall’s response that "a complaining witness is not a party to the disciplinary proceedings and does not have the right to appeal." Petitioners’ pointed out to Mr. Hall, by virtue of The Florida Bar’s undisclosed conflict of interest and their apparent "outright lie" as the reason for dismissing the grievance at the administrative level, Petitioners’ were never afforded a disciplinary proceeding.

31) The Florida Bar’s dismissal based on an "outright lie" is a stop-gap measure that The Florida Bar utilized to deprive the Petitioners’ of their right to appeal. Petitioners’ again asked for an acceptable and impartial panel to hear their grievance. Petitioners’ wanted to know why they were not given their right to an acceptable and impartial panel hearing their grievance based on The Florida Bar’s inherent and direct conflict of interest with the respondent attorneys, Ronald C. Kopplow and Marc Cooper.

32) On May 26, 2000, Petitioners’ received a letter from Governor Bush advising Petitioners’ that the Florida Constitution limits his authority over the courts and the judicial system. (Appendix 28)

33) On May 30, 2000 Petitioners’ received a letter, dated May 12, 2000, from Edith Osman, President of The Florida Bar requesting, among other things, that Petitioners’ provide new material to The Florida Bar as a next step in their grievance against attorneys Ronald C. Kopplow and Marc Cooper. (Appendix 29)

34) On June 3, 2000 Petitioners’ responded in detail to Edith Osman, President of The Florida Bar. (Appendix 30) The information that Petitioners’ provided to Ms. Osman, in Petitioners’ view, clearly showed a pattern of improprieties, coverups and corruption on the part of The Florida Bar in their handling of this grievance and the relationship between the respondent attorneys, The Florida Bar, and its own created malpractice insurance carrier, Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company.

35) On June 6, 2000 Tom Hall, Clerk of The Supreme Court of Florida, responded again to Petitioners’ stating that The Florida Bar will not investigate a complaint concerning a determination made by The Florida Bar that there is no basis to find probable cause against an individual attorney. (Appendix 31) He suggested that if Petitioners’ had "new information" that Petitioners’ felt would warrant a new consideration of this matter, Petitioners’ should bring it to the attention of the appropriate officials at The Florida Bar.

36) On June 16, 2000 Petitioners’ received a letter from Paula Wood, Administrative Assistant to Attorney General Bob Butterworth, advising Petitioners’ that the Attorney General has no jurisdiction in this matter. (Appendix 32) Petitioners’ found that incredible to believe since Petitioners’ brought to the attention of the Attorney General the "view of the corrupt manner" in which The Florida Bar operates which should have prompted an immediate investigation by his office.

37) On June 20, 2000, Petitioners’ provided Edith Osman with additional information, as she requested that was not part of the original grievance against Kopplow and Cooper. (Appendix 33)

38) On July 5, 2000, after extensive delay, Ms. Osman responded to Petitioners’ stating that she is "no longer President of The Florida Bar, effective June 23, 2000. I therefore have no further ability to deal with grievance matters. All information is with The Florida Bar." (Appendix 34) It should be noted that Ms. Osman asked that Petitioners’ supply additional information, which Petitioners’ did. Ms. Osman did not respond to that additional information until she was no longer President of The Florida Bar. Petitioners’ believe Ms. Osman knowingly was aware of allegations that should have prompted her office to immediately investigate while she was still the President of The Florida Bar. Further, Petitioners’ believe that she chose to ignore her duties and then relinquished her duties by the termination of her reign as President of The Florida Bar.

39) On July 13, 2000 Kathi Lee Kilpatrick, Assistant Director, Lawyer Regulations, Tallahassee, e-mailed Petitioners’ that she had not received new information regarding Petitioners’ grievance and absent new information Petitioners’ previously filed complaints shall remain closed. (Appendix 35)

40) On July 14, 2000 Kathi Lee Kilpatrick e-mailed Petitioners’ requesting that Petitioners’ forward to her any information that Petitioners’ would like reviewed.

41) On July 15, 2000 Petitioners’ forwarded a copy of the information to Kathi Lee Kilpatrick that Petitioners’ had previously sent to Ms. Osman on June 20, 2000.

42) Petitioners’ subsequently provided additional information and have made numerous requests on the progress of this investigation.

43) Ms. Kilpatrick advised Petitioners’ that investigator John Barr will be reviewing the files. Petitioners’ have made numerous attempts to get an update on the situation and have had no response.

44) Petitioners’ have also written to the Chairman of Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company, Ray Ferrero, Jr. apprizing him of the conflict of interest with regard to The Florida Bar and Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company. This conflict of interest is escalated by the fact that a legal malpractice claim against Kopplow and Cooper was filed in Dade County, Florida on September 7, 1999.

Petitioners believe that The Florida Bar and certain dignitaries of The Florida Bar have been interfering with the administration of justice as pertains to grievances brought against insured members of Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company whereby such proper review of meritorious grievances would have an impact on the claims brought against the Bar’s created malpractice insurance carrier, Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company.

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 all for underlying financial motivations as pertains to its relationship with Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company.

The Florida Bar has been using its autonomous and elitist power and position to control both the disciplinary process and the valid claims brought against its member insured’s of its created malpractice carrier, Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company. This incestuous relationship has proven to be detrimental to the citizens of this State that The Florida Bar is duty bound to protect, but beneficial to the insured member owners of Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company.

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, a Writ of Mandamus 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 against attorneys Ronald C. Kopplow and Marc Cooper based upon the severe conflict of interest which resulted in the Bar’s summary dismissal (failure to find probable cause) and the failure to properly consider and evaluate the grievance because of underlying motivations based upon a conflict of interest. Petitioners also request that the Court include in the Writ of Mandamus directions to The Florida Bar on how to conduct an Internal Investigation as to the manner in which the Petitioners’ grievance 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 against attorneys Ronald C. Kopplow and Marc Cooper, be submitted to the Court for final review and determination as to as to any ultimate relief to be granted to any party.

Petitioners’ contend, The Florida Bar, by virtue of its relationship with its own created malpractice insurance carrier has put itself in a position to control both the disciplinary proceedings and the malpractice claims brought against its member insured’s and member employees of The Florida Bar’s created malpractice insurance carrier.

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.

Petitioners’ have exhausted every avenue to try and accomplish their goal of having an acceptable and independent panel, free of conflicts of interest, review and make a determination on the grievance filed against Messrs. Kopplow and Cooper; to date, this reasonable request has been denied.

The clear conflict of interest requires that The Florida Bar undertake appropriate action to insure that the Petitioners’ grievance 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 also 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 a Writ of Mandamus 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.

_______________________
NORMAN LANSON

_______________________
MERYL M. LANSON

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; Kathi Lee Kilpatrick, Assistant Director, Lawyer Regulaton, The Florida Bar, 650 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, FL 32399- 2300, Terry Russell, President, The Florida Bar, 650 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300, on this ___ day of July, 2001.