In the Supreme Court of Florida the Florida Bar
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Filing # 80243393 E-Filed 11/02/2018 11:00:31 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA THE FLORIDA BAR, Supreme Court Case Complainant, No. SC17-490 v. The Florida Bar File No. 2016-10,349 (12A) MELTON HARRY LITTLE, Respondent. ____________________________/ THE FLORIDA BAR, Supreme Court Case Complainant, No. SC17-574 v. The Florida Bar File No. 2016-10,348 (12A) SCOTT BRIAN KALLINS, Respondent. ____________________________/ REPLY/CROSS-ANSWER BRIEF Troy Matthew Lovell, Bar Counsel Joshua E. Doyle, Executive Director The Florida Bar, Tampa Branch Office The Florida Bar 2002 North Lois Avenue, Suite 300 651 E. Jefferson Street Tampa, Florida 33607 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300 (813) 875-9821 (850) 561-5600 Florida Bar No. 946036 Florida Bar No. 25902 [email protected] [email protected] Adria E. Quintela, Staff Counsel The Florida Bar RECEIVED, 11/02/201811:03:26 AM,Clerk,Supreme Court Lakeshore Plaza II, Suite 130 1300 Concord Terrace Sunrise, Florida 33323 (954) 835-0233 Florida Bar No. 897000 [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ i TABLE OF CITATIONS ......................................................................................... ii SYMBOLS AND REFERENCES ............................................................................. v REPLY BRIEF ........................................................................................................... 1 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 1 I. RESPONDENTS’ MISCONDUCT WAS KNOWING. .............................. 1 II. RESPONDENTS FAIL TO PROVIDE SUPPORT FROM CASE LAW. .. 4 III. EXHIBIT 30 IS NEITHER EVIDENCE NOR AUTHORITY. ................... 6 IV. RESPONDENTS FAIL TO DISTINGUISH SAXON .................................. 8 V. RESPONDENTS’ GIFTS WERE NOT DE MINIMIS. ..............................10 VI. EVEN SUBSTANTIAL MITIGATION DOES NOT OVERCOME SERIOUS MISCONDUCT. .................................................................................11 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 13 CROSS-ANSWER BRIEF ...................................................................................... 14 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND OF THE FACTS ......................................... 14 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ...................................................................... 18 ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 19 I. THIS COURT’S REVIEW IS NEVER CONDITIONAL. ........................19 II. THE REFEREE CORRECTLY GRANTED PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT. ........................................................................................................20 III. RULE 4-3.5(a) .............................................................................................22 IV. RULE 3-4.3 .................................................................................................26 V. RULE 4-8.4(a) .............................................................................................28 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 29 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 29 CERTIFICATE OF TYPE, SIZE AND STYLE AND ANTI-VIRUS SCAN ........ 31 i TABLE OF CITATIONS Cases Florida Bar v. Adorno, 60 So. 3d 1016 (Fla. 2011) ............................................3, 12 Florida Bar v. Beach, 699 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 1997) ..................................................23 Florida Bar v. Gardiner, 183 So. 3d 240 (Fla. 2014) ................................ 10, 12, 21 Florida Bar v. Korones, 752 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 2000) ...............................................12 Florida Bar v. Ratiner, 46 So. 3d 35 (Fla. 2010) ....................................................27 Florida Bar v. Rotstein, 835 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 2002) ...............................................27 Florida Bar v. Saxon, 379 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 1980) .............................................8, 10 Florida Bar v. Scheinberg, 129 So. 3d. 315 (Fla. 2013) ............................ 10, 12, 21 Florida Bar v. Swann, 116 So. 3d 1225 (Fla. 2013) ................................................24 Florida Bar v. Trazenfeld, 833 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 2002) ............................................. 8 Florida Bar v. Von Zamft, 814 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 2002) ............................................22 Florida Bar v. Wynn, 210 So. 3d 1271 (Fla. 2017) ................................................... 7 In re Luzzo, 756 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 2000) ........................................................... 4, 5, 11 Steinhorst v. State, 636 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1994) .......................................................10 Rules R. Regulating Fla. Bar 3-4.3 ................................................................. 14, 18, 26, 27 R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-3.5 ............................................................................. 14, 25 R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-3.5(a) ....................................................... 18, 22, 23, 26, 27 R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-3.5, Comment ..................................................................26 R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-8.4(a) ................................................................... 14, 18, 28 ii R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-8.4(c) ................................................................................27 R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-8.4(d) .......................................... 14, 18, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27 Florida Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions Fla. Stds. Imposing Law. Sancs. 6.32 ....................................................................1, 3 Fla. Stds. Imposing Law. Sancs. 6.34 ........................................................................ 1 Fla. Stds. Imposing Law. Sancs. 9.3 ........................................................................13 Fla. Stds. Imposing Law. Sancs., Section II .............................................................. 2 Other Code of Judicial Conduct, Definitions .....................................................................11 Fla. Code Jud. Conduct, Canon 1 ............................................................................26 Fla. Code Jud. Conduct, Canon 2A..........................................................................26 Fla. Code Jud. Conduct, Canon 2B ..........................................................................26 Fla. Code Jud. Conduct, Canon 3B(5) .....................................................................26 Fla. Code Jud. Conduct, Canon 3B(8) .....................................................................26 Fla. Code Jud. Conduct, Canon 3E(1) .....................................................................26 Fla. Code Jud. Conduct, Canon 5A(1) .....................................................................26 Fla. Code Jud. Conduct, Canon 5A(2) .....................................................................26 Fla. Code Jud. Conduct, Canon 5A(3) .....................................................................26 Fla. Code Jud. Conduct, Canon 5D(5)(h) ................................................................26 Fla. Code Jud. Conduct, Canon 5D(h) .....................................................................11 Fla. Const. Art. V, Section 15 ..............................................................................7, 19 iii Public Admonishment of Former Judge Vincent P. DiFiglia (Cal. Comm’n on Jud. Perf. Jan. 9, 2007), available at https://cjp.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/ 402016/08/DiFiglia_01-09-07.pdf ......................................................................... 5 iv SYMBOLS AND REFERENCES Respondents, Melton Harry Little and Scott Brian Kallins, will be referred to by name, or collectively as “Respondents.” The Florida Bar will be referred to as “The Florida Bar” or as “the Bar.” The referee will be referred to as “Referee.” Additionally, “Rule” or “Rules” will refer to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. “Standard” or “Standards” will refer to Florida Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions. “Report” will refer to the Report of Referee entered on May 17, 2018, followed by the appropriate page number (e.g., Report 1). References to specific pleadings will be made by title and, if applicable, Index tab number. “Transcript” will refer to the transcript of the trial before the Referee, followed by the volume and appropriate page number (e.g., Transcript, Vol. I, p. 1). “Exh.” will refer to the joint exhibits admitted during the final hearing, followed by the appropriate exhibit number (e.g., Exh. 1). “Index” will refer to the Index of Record, followed by the tab number (e.g., Index 1). “Answer Brief” will refer to the Respondents’ Answer and Conditional Cross-Initial Brief dated October 11, 2018, followed by the appropriate page number (e.g. Answer Brief, p. 1). v REPLY BRIEF ARGUMENT I. RESPONDENTS’ MISCONDUCT WAS KNOWING. The Florida Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions are an important authority for determining an appropriate sanction for attorney misconduct. In their Answer Brief, Respondents argue that Standard 6.34 (which calls for an admonishment) is the correct Standard to apply, rather than the Bar’s recommended Standard 6.32 (which calls for suspension). One of the primary