The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those with disabilities and should be used for no other purpose. These are not legal documents, and may not be used as legal authority. This transcript is not an official document of the Florida Supreme Court.

The Florida Bar v. Robert A. Boland


THE COURT WILL C A LL THE NEXT CASE, WHICH IS FLORIDA BAR VERSUS R OBERT A BOLAND. ,,PARTIES READY?MR. BOLAND.

GOOD MOR NING , LADIES ANDGENTLEMEN, MEMBERS OF THEFLORIDA BAR , ROBERT A BOLAND , PRO SE, FOR THE RESPON DENT . I WOULD LIKE TO DI VIDE MY TIME. AS I INDICA TED TO THE CLERK , I WILL S PEND 8 MINUTES ON FLEE IS SUES AND RES ERVE MY ON THREE ISSUES AND RESERVE MY TIME FOR REBUTTAL. THREE ISS UES.I AM NOT HERE TO AR GUE THE FACTS , BUT I AM GOING TO ARGUE AS A SUBSTANTIVE MATTER THE FA CTS , AS A MATTER OF LAW , DO NOT GIVE RISE TO A GRIEVANCE ABLE ACT COMMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT.

CHIEF JUSTICE: JUST SO WE MAKE SURE THE RESPONDE NT IS YOU.

THAT'S CORRECT .

CHIEF JUSTICE: YOU CAN REFER, SI NCE YOU ARE APPEARING ON YOUR OWN BEHALF.

PRO SE. LET ME GET INTO THE SUBSTANTIVE MATTERS. THE ACTS OF PRACTICING L AW, BASICALLY COME DOWN TO THR EE THINGS . I AM GOING TO GOING TO JAIL , RECEIVING A CHECK THAT THE COMPLA INANT ADMITTED THAT HE OWED ME F UNDS. THAT IS ONE ACT .

COULD YOU , THE ACT, THE F UNDS, THESE WERE MO NIES PAID FOR ASSISTING IN THE D RIVERS LI CENSE MATT ERS. IS THAT YOUR POS ITION ? VERY INTERE STING YOU ASKED

VERY INTERESTING YOU ASKED THAT. MY POSITION WAS THAT THE $750 I RECEIVED OUT OF THE 1500, WAS FOR FEES THAT WERE OWED TO ME. WHAT HAP PENED HERE .

FOR WHAT SERVICES?

WELL

RE LATED T O WHICH SERVICES , SIR?

WELL , I REPRESENTED , ASS ISTED THE COMPLAINANT IN GOING TO LAKE CITY . HE HAD TWO FIVE-YEAR FELONIES THERE, COCAINE AND METH AMPHETAMINE . I D ROVE THERE , AND I ASSISTED HI M. HE WAS AR RESTED WITH HIS COU SIN . THE COUSIN RECE IVED THE PUBLIC DEFENDER . I WENT TO ONE OF HIS PRELIMINARY HEAR INGS. THE COURT APPOINTED AN ATTORNEY THERE .

AT WHAT TIME PERIO D WAS THIS ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

THIS WAS IN , O KAY , TIME PERIODS THAT ARE VERY IMPORTANT HERE ARE OBVIOUSLY SUSPENDED BY THIS COURT , JANUARY 5 , 19 98 , FOR TWO YEARS. VERY INTERESTING, A L SO, THAT I ASKED THIS COURT , A T THAT PARTICULAR TIME , THAT THERE WAS FOUR INDIVIDUALS , FOUR CLIENTS , THAT I HAD WORKED FOR, THAT THEY HAD G AVE ME NONREFUNDABLE RETAINER . I HAD SP ENT THE MON EY. I HAD NO ABILITY TO GIVE BACK THE MONEY .

OK AY. SO YOU WERE SUSPENDED IN JANUARY OF '98. WHEN DID THESE ACTS THAT YOUWERE JUST TAL KING ABOUT OCCUR?

HE WAS ARR ESTED IN COLUMBIA COUNTY , LAKE CITY, I BELIEVE IN THE SUMMERTIME,APRIL OR MAY OF 1 997 , BEFOREI WAS SUS PENDED . MY AD VICE TO HIM WAS THAT H E HAD A GOOD COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY. I WENT THERE, AND I OB SERVED THE GENTLEMAN. AND I S AID YOU WOULD BE BETTER OFF S T ICKING WITH MR . PAGE, BE CAUSE I FE LT HE WASA GOOD ATTORNEY . I HAVE BEEN MO STLY IN CRIMINAL PRACTICE FOR 26 YEARS.

BUT , NOW , AS I UNDERSTOOD HERE , WE ARE REALLY TA LKING ABOUT YOUR REPRESENTING HIM ON A DR IVERS LICENSE MATTER, WHICH WAS CONCLUDED IN 1998 , AFTER YOUR SUSP ENSION .

YES. THAT IS THE ALLE GATION OF THE BAR. MY POSITION IS , I GAVE NO ADVICE TO HIM. I REFERRED AN ATTORNEY TO HIM , BECAUSE HE WAS CHARGEDWITH A SUSPENDED LICENSE. THE QUESTION COMES , I DR OVE HIM TO A COURTHOUSE TO RECEIVE D -6 CLEARANCES. WHI CH, TO ME IS A MINISTERIAL ACT.IT IS NOT AN ACT OF PRACTICING LAW.

THIS OCCURRED A FTER YOUR SUSPENSION.

THAT IS WHAT THE POSITION O F THE BAR WAS. IT WAS MY POSITION THAT THAT WAS DONE BEFOREHAND . THERE IS A FACTUAL DISPUTEAS TO THAT. THE FACTS FAVORABLE TO THE STATE OR TO THE FLORIDA BAR, ASSUMING THAT IT OC CURRED WHILE I WAS SUSPENDED , IT IS MY POSITION THAT , GOING TO GET A D -6 CLEARANCE , AND DRIVING AN INDIVIDUAL TO AMOTOR VEHI CL E DEPARTMENT , IS NOT AN ACT OF PRACTICING L AW. I WAS NO NO TRAFFIC COURT. IT IS A MIN ISTERIAL FU NCTION . AND IF THE FACT FI NDER IN THIS CASE FELT LIKE I RECEIVED $750 FOR THAT , THAT IS $750 AS A DRIVER NOT AS A LAWYER.

WOULD YOU DISCUSS WITH US , THE D-6 PROCEEDINGS. THERE IS NO DISCUSSION THERE.IS NO ADVERSARIAL PROCESS. IT IS A MATTER OF FI LLING OUT PAPERS OR SOMETHING OFTHAT NAT URE.

D-6 IS A $4 CLEARANCETHAT YOU TAKE TO GO TO THE M OTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT. HIS FINES ARE ALREADY PAID. YOU GO TO THE TRAFFIC CLERK OFFICE. YOU ARE NOT IN A COURTROOM , AND YOU GO , AN D YOU S HOW , YOU SA Y I WANT T O PAY $4 ANDI NE ED A D-6 CLEARANCE. YOU GA THER THE D-6 CLEARANCES. YOU TAKE THEM TO THE MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT. YOU PR ESENT THE M TO THEMOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT. TAKE AN EYE TEST , DRIVINGTEST, WHATEVER THEY DO. THAT IS ALL THAT HAPPENED.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT PARALEGAL S PROBABLY DO MORE EVERYDAY THAN S O METHING LIKE THIS, IS THAT

CORRECT. I ASSISTED HIM IN THAT MATTER. I B ELIEVE IT WAS BEFORE THE SUSPENSION , THE FL ORIDA BAR INDICATES AND THE REF EREE INDICATES IT WAS AFTER. NOTWITHSTANDING THAT, THAT IS NOT AN ACT OF PRACT ICING LAW.

WHAT ABOUT THE PREPARATION OF THE AFFIDAVIT?

I DON'T CALL IT AN AFFIDAVIT , SIR. IT IS A SWORN STATEMENT OF G IVING ME MON IES. IT IS NO MORE THAN A CHECK. THE MAN OW ED ME MONEY. HE ADMITTED THAT HE OWED ME MONEY, AND HE GAVE ME A CHECK OR ASSIGNMENT AFTER C ASH BO ND .

SO WHAT WAS THE PURPOSEOF THE AFFIDAVIT?

WELL , W H EN YOU , WHEN THERE IS MONIES POSTED I N COLUMBIA COUNTY FOR A DEFENDANT , B Y THE COMPLAINANT FOR HIS COUSIN , I HAVE TO HAVE A SWORNSTATEMENT , BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS THERIGHT INDIVIDUAL IN ORDER TO RELEASE THE FUNDS. I DROVE ALL THE WAY U P TO LAKE CITY. I WENT TO THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE. I INTRODUCED MYSELF , AND I SAID I HAVE THE ASSIGNMENT OF A CHECK THAT WAS POSTED . THE CASE IS TERMINATED. THE ZR SCHIFF'S SECRETARY W ROTE THE SHERIFF'SSECRETARY WROTE ME A CH ECK. I TOOK THE CHECK , AND I PAID THE BONDSMAN BECAUSE I GUARANTEED THE BOND.

LET ME BACK U P THERE. TO GET THE CHECK , YOU PRESENTED AN AFF IDAVIT SIGNED BY MR . JIMENEZ , PREPARED BY YOU, TO THE S HERIFF OFFICIAL, TO GE T THE RELEASE OF THE FUNDS.

I PRE PARED THAT ASSIGNMENT OF THE CASH BOND.

WAS IT REQUIRED TO BE UNDER OATH? WOULD THEY HAVE ACCEPTED JUST A LE TTER, OR WAS THIS A PARTICULAR FORM T HAT IS REQUIRED?

MY EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN THAT THEY ARE GOING TO WAN T IT NOTARI ZED , BECAUSE THAT COULD LEAD TO FRAUD. ANYBODY COULD COME UP AND SAY I AM SO-AND-SO AND I AM HERE TO GET THE MONEY. THAT IS , I DON'T THIN K THAT WOULD WORK. THEY ARE GOING TO WANT TO HAVE THAT NOTARIZED.

I AM CONFUSED , THOUGH , ABOUT THE $7 50. WAS IT FOR SERVICES CONNECTED IN GETTING THE DRIVERS LICENSE BACK OR FOR PREVIOUS LEGAL SER VICES THAT YOU CONTEND WERE OWED ?

MY OPINION WAS, BECAUSE I WAS VERY S T RICT ABOUT THIS , MY O P INION WAS IT WAS MONIES THAT HE OWED T O M E , BOTH OUT OF THE COLUMBIA COUNTY AND THE HEADACHE THAT THE GENTLEMAN CAUSED M E . MIND YOU , I A M OBLIGATED FOR $6,000 WHEN THERE IS - -

I THOUGHT IN YOUR AM ENDED INITIAL BRIEF, YOU SAID THAT THEY WERE FOR LEGAL FEES FORSERVICES RE NDERED IN ASSISTING HIM , JIMENEZ, IN GETTING HIS LICENSE REINSTATED, BUT TO DAY YOU ARE TELLING US THAT THEY WERE ACTUALLY $750 FOR FEES THAT WERE LEGAL FEES THAT WERE OWED FROM SERVICES UNRELATED TO THE LICENSE

MA'AM, I REPRESENTED THIS INDIVIDUAL FOR OVER A YEAR , A YEAR AND-A- HALF . HE HAD A S LEW OF CHARGES . HE HAD SOME VERY SERIOUS CHARGE INS COLUMBIA COUNTY. HE ENDED UP WITH TRAF FICKING CHARGES OF CO CAINE IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. THAT WAS IN ' 98. I DIDN'T REPRESENT HIM ON THAT. HE CONTINUALLY HAD HIS L ICENSE SUSPEN DED. WE HAD TRAFFIC PROBLEMS WITH THIS GENTLEMAN FOR A L ONG , LONG TIME. THERE WAS, PROBABLY, TWO AND THREE TIMES THAT HE WAS SUSPENDED , ON LY TO GET I T CLEARED UP. MY RECOLLECTION IS , GOING TO BARTOW ON THE , IF YOU LOOK AT THE DRIVING RECORD OF THE GENTLEMAN, HE ADMITTED THAT WE WENT TO BAR TOW TO PAY A TICKET OR TO GET A D-6 , AND THAT WAS WAY BACK IN ' 97 , SO IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THAT HE COULD HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED TWO AND THREE TIMES. A LL I KNOW IS I HAVE NEVER APPEARED IN A COURT OF L A W IN TH OSE TWO YEARS THAT I WAS SUSPENDED , AND HAD I THOUGHT THAT , BY GOING TO THE MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT IN JANUARY , ALL I HAD TO DO WAS ASK YOU FOR PERMISSION TO DO THAT , BECAUSE YOU GAVE ME, WHEN WE STA RTED THE TWO-YEAR SUSPEN SION, I T OLD YOU MY PROBLEM WITH FOUR CLIENTS , AND I SAID , I WANT TO DO THE RIGHT THING HERE.I HAVE SPENT THE MONEY. I WANT TO PERFORM THESERVICES, BECAUSE THEY ARE G OING TO HAVE TO PAY TW ICE. YOU GR ANTED ME THE R IGHT TO PRACTICE O N FOUR CASES. THREE OF THOSE WERE FEL ONIES .

JUST SO

ALL WE HAVE T O DO

YOU SAY THERE IS SOMETHING IN THE COURT RECORD ON YOUR CASE THAT W ILL SHOW SOME EXCEPTIONS.

YES, MA'AM.THE EXCEPTION IS AS FOLLOWS , JANUARY 5 , 19 98, I WAS SUSPENDED BY THIS COURT FORTWO YE ARS. I ASKED YOU FOR A 30 -DAY EXTENSION ON FOUR CASES , BECAUSE I HAD THE INABILITY TO REFUND THE MONEY TO THOSE PEOPLE WH O

IS JIMENEZ ONE OF THE FOUR CASES?

NO , IT WAS NOT , BUT MY POINT IS ALL I HAD TO DO ON A DRIVERS LICENSE WAS ASK YOU, AND I BELIEVE THIS COURT WOULD HAVE GRANTED IT. I DID N' T ASK YOU, BECAUSE INEVER THOUGHT THAT GOING TO THE DRIVERS LICENSE BU REAU , AN ADMINTERIAL ACT , I NEVER THOUGHT THE FLORIDA BAR COULD CONSIDER THAT AN ACT OF PRACTICING LAW.

LET 'S GO T O A PRIL 1998 , MR . JIME NEZ GETS PICKED U P ON NEW CHARGES AND THE FINDING OF THE REREFEREE WASTHAT YOU WENT TO MR . JIMENEZ 'SPARENTS , HIS MOTHER'S HOME AND REQU ESTED FUNDS. WHAT WERE THOSE FUNDS FOR?

I SECURED COUNSEL FOR MR . J IMENEZ , BOTH ON SUSPENDED LICENSE AND ON AN IMMIGRATION HOLD. PEOPLE IN HIS FA MILY WROTE A CHECK-OUT TO THE LAWYERS WHO REPRESENT HAD MR . JIMENEZ. NO FUNDS EVER CAME THROUGH MY ESCROW ACCOUNT.

WHY DID YOU GO TO THEHOME?

I WANT ED TO HELP THE MA N. I WANTE D TO GET HIM AN IMMIGRATION LAWYER BECAUSE HE HAD AN IMMIGRATION HO LD. I TOLD HIM, AND HE ADMI TTED THAT I DON'T PRACTICE IMM IGRATION LAW, I NEVER HAVE AND NEVER WI LL, AND I CAN'T DO IT AND I AM SUSPENDED AND I AM NOT GOINGTO DO IT ANYWAY, SO I TRIEDTO ASSIST HIM IN GETTING ALAWYER. I DID, I WAS SUCCESSFUL ON THE SUSPENDED. I WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL ON THE IMMIGRATION.THAT HOLD STAYED. THE GENTLEMAN STAYED IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY JA IL FOR THREE YEARS .

BEF ORE YOU SIT DO WN , ANDYOU ARE IN YOUR REBUTTAL TIME , LET ME ASK , YOU WERE SUSPENDED IN 1998.

YES, S IR. JANUARY 5.

TELL ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN 1998 AND TODAY, AS FAR AS YOU PERSONALLY ARE CONCERNED.WHAT HAPPENED HERE?

WHAT HAPPENED TO ME?

YES.

I BROKE MY NECK , I BR OKE MY SPINE. I WAS A PASSENGER IN A CAR ACCIDENT.

SO WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN DOING SINCE THEN?

UNEMPLOYED . I AM DISABLED.

OK AY. AND DID YOU AP PLY FOR REINSTATEMENT TO THE BAR ?

I WAS ADVISED BY COUN SEL THAT THAT WOULD BE FRUITLESS.

SO YOU HAVE NOT DONE THAT .

AND I DIDN'T HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY THE CO STS ANYWAY.

YOU HAVE BEEN SUSPENDEDSINCE

NO, SIR. I WAS SUSPENDED JANUARY 5 , 1998. THAT SUSPENSION ENDED JANUARY 5 , 2000. THERE HAS BEEN THREE GRIEV ANCES SINCE THAT TIME , BROUGHT BY THE F LORIDA BAR, WHICH I WOULD BELIEVE TO BE IN BAD FAITH. ONE WAS DISMISSED

BUT YOU HAVE NOT BEEN REINS TATED.

I AM SORRY, SIR?

YOU HAVE NOT BEEN REINSTATED.

NO, SIR, I HAVE NOT APPLIED.MY COUNSEL T O LD ME THAT , WITH THREE PE NDING GRIEVANCES FILED IN WHAT I THINK WOULD BE IN A DE LAYED MATTER, WOULD BE TO ENSURE THAT I WOULD NOT REINSTATE. IT HAS BEEN 5 YEARS 3 MON THS 29 D AYS SINCE I HAVE BEEN ELIGIBLE TO REINSTATE , AND THE REASON WHY I CAN'T IS B ECAUSE OF THIS PARTICULAR ACTION THAT HAS BEEN FILED .

YOU MENTIONING O THER GRIEVANCES, IS THERE, WHAT WAS THE BASIS FOR YOUR TWO-YEAR SUSPENSION ?

WELL , THIS COURT ENTERED A R ULING THAT I VIOLATED CERTAIN RULES , THAT I AG REED TO THAT AND I TOOK MY PUNISHMENT.

WHAT WERE THE RULES? WHAT IS I T THAT

THIS WAS INVOLVING A, THE SAME REF EREE , AND I WAS REPRESENTING A C L IENT IN NORTH CARO LINA , WHO ELECTED TO COME TO F L ORIDA , AND IN NORTH CAROLIN A , T HEY HAVE A BIFURCATED DIVORCE SYSTEM.YOU CANNOT FILE FOR DIVORCE. IF YOU HAVE CHILDREN, YOU HAVE TO WAIT A CERTAIN A MOUNT OF TIME . IT IS WHAT THEY CALL ACOOLING OFF PER IOD. D URING THE COOLING OFF PERIOD , THE INDIVIDUAL LE FT THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA. THE F BI GOT INVOLVED, AND THERE WAS KIDNAPING CHAR GES AND ALL SOR TS OF ACTIONS . EVENTUALLY THE INDIVIDUAL IS CAUGHT DOWN IN FL ORIDA , AND HER STOR Y WAS THAT IT WAS BOBBIE: L A ND'S I DEA TO RUN FROM NORTH CAROLINA , AND THE CHIEF , THE REFEREE BELIEVED THAT, EVEN THOUGH I NEVER G AVE SUCH ADVICE AND I NEVER APPEARED IN THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT, BUT NONETHELESS , MY TIME FOR APPEALING THAT WAS O VER. THIS COURT RULED AGAINST ME.

WHAT IS THE STAT US OF THE OTHER THREE GRIEVANCES?

WELL , THE OTHER GRIEVANCE , I , THE STATE OF FLO RIDA OR THE FLORIDA BAR AGREED TO DISMISS IT , ONE WAS DISMISSED BY THE PROBABLE CAUSE COMMITTEE IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY.

WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER TWO?

THE OTHER TWO, ONE , WE A GREED THAT IT WOULD BE DISMISSED, AND I WOULD RETURN HALF OF THE LEGAL FEES THAT I RECEIVED. AND THEY WOULD DISMISS THE CASE . WHEN I BROKE MY NECK , I COULDN'T PAY BACK THE MONE Y.

WHAT IS THE THIRD ONE?

THE THIRD ONE IS THIS ONE, S IR.

OKAY. YOU ARE IN YOUR REB UTTAL .

WELL .

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT . DEBRA DA VIS, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE FLORIDA BAR.

WHEN DID THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT GAVE RISE TO THIS GRIEVANCE, WHEN DIDTHAT COME TO THE ATTENTION OF THE FLORIDA BAR?

THE JIMENEZ GRIEVANCE CAME TO THE AT TENTION OF THE FLORIDA BAR , WHEN IT WAS FILED OCT OBER 1 IS THE DATE ON THE INQUIRY COMPLAINT. OCTOBER 6 IS THE DATE WE RECEIVED IT, O F 1998. AND THAT WAS ADMI TTED AS AN EXHIBIT I N THIS CASE .

I AM TR YING TO FIND OUT WHAT TOOK FOUR YEARS FROM THE TIME IT WAS FILED , UNTIL THE TIME THAT THE REFEREE 'S REPORT I N 2002?

THAT IS A VERY GOOD QUESTION, JUSTICE PARIENTE , AND I THIN K THERE IS A LOTOF DIFFERENT ANSWERS TO THAT. FIRST , AND FOREMOST , I WOULD DIRECT THE COURT'S ATT ENTION TO SANK TO SANCTIONS HEARING AND THE ISSUE OF DELAY WAS R AISED , AND DISCUSSED , AT LENGTH. THERE WERE SE VERAL DOCUMENTS THAT WERE EN TERED, TIME LINE. INITIALLY , THE FL ORIDA BAR SOUGHT A RESPONSE FR OM MR . BOLAND AS TO THE ALLEGA TIONS RAISED BY A LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 5 OF 1998.THERE WAS NO RESPONSE TO THAT LETTER . A FOLLOW-UP CERTIFIED LETTER WAS MA ILED ON DECEMBER 4 , AGAIN , REQUESTING HIS RESPONSE TO THE ALLE GATIONS , AND AS MR . B OLAND , HIM SELF , HAS TEST IFIED , AND IT IS PART OF THE RECORD IN THESE PROCEEDINGS , I AM REFER RING

THERE HAS GOT TO BE ANOTHER REASON WHY IT TOOK F OUR YEARS THAN JUST NOTRESPONDING TO THE COMPLAINT FOR TWO MONTHS.

ABSOLUTELY. THERE WAS THAT IN ITIAL REQUEST , AND MR. BO LAND , DID ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, HE D O ESN'T ACCEPT CERTIFIED MAIL BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE EFFECTIVE SERVICE ON HIM , AND THAT IS IN ONE OF THE TRANSCRIPTS IN THE RECORD. SO WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS COMPLAINT IS WE HAD AN INVESTIGATOR SERVING , HAND DOCUMENTS ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS TO THE RESPONDENT , AND THE MATTER WAS FORWARDED TO THE GRIEVANCE COM MITTEE ON MARCH 5 . IT WAS ASSIGNED TO AN INVESTIGATING ME MBER ON MARCH 19. IT WASN'T U N TIL THEREAFTER THAT WE RECEIVED AN INITIAL RES PONSE, AND I WOULD DIRECT THE COURT'S ATTE NTION TO THE INITIAL RESPONSE OF THE RESPONDENT IN THIS CASE.IT IS EXHIBIT 1 1, AND IN THAT HE MA KES REFERENCES , TALKING ABOUT THE DRIVERS LICENSE MATTER, THAT HE SPENT AN ENTIRE DAY G OING O VER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES TO WALK THIS CLIENT THROUGH, AND THE WA Y HE WAS DESCRIBING IT , IT WAS JUSTIFYING THE FEES THAT HAD BEEN CHARGED IN THIS CASE. NOW , THERE WERE , THERE WAS A L AG AT THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE , FROM THE TIME IT WAS ASSIGNED UNT IL IT WAS INITIALLY PROPOSED TO BE SETFOR EVID ENTIARY HE ARING , ANDTHAT TIME WAS ABOUT 18 MONDAYS, I BELIEVE. IT WAS SEPTEMBER , 2000 , WHEN THE INITIAL LETTER WAS

IS THAT A GRIEVANCE DATE?

YES, MA'AM. YES, MA'AM. AND AS THIS COURT KNOWS , THE GRI EVANCE COMMIT TEES ARE COMPRISED OF VOLUNTEER MEMBERS , AT LE AST ONE-THIRD OF THOSE MEMBERS HAVE TO BE PUBLIC MEMBERS. THIS PARTICULAR CASE WAS ASSIGNED TO A PUBLIC MEMBER. IT INV OLVES WITNESSES WHO DIDN'T SPEAK ENGLISH , WITNESSES WHO ARE FROM OUT-OF-STATE, NOT OUT-OF-STATE, EXCUSE ME , OUT OF COUNTY. THERE WERE SUBPOENAS ISS UED TO O B TAIN SOME BANKINGRECORDS AND CO PIES OF THE DOCUMENTS. IT DID LI NGER LONGER AT THE COMMITTEE THAN WE WOULD HAVE LIKED, BUT I

LET ME ASK THIS , TO GET ON WITH THE MERITS. WHAT ACTIONS DID MR . BOLAND T AKE , THAT A NONLAWYER COULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO TAKE ? UNDER RULE 3-6.1 , WH ICH DISCUSSES EMPLOYMENT OF CERTAIN ATTORNEYS INCLUDING SUSPENDED ATTORNEYS, IT IS CLEAR THAT SUSPENDED ATTORNEYS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE DIRECT CONTACT WITH CLIENTS, AND SUSPENDED ATTORNEYS

WAIT A MINUTE. THAT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME WHERE THEY ACT AS PARALEGAL S. THAT GO ES ON , WE SE E THAT A LL THE TIME AND THAT LEADSTO PROBLEMS, G R ANTED , BUT THEY DO HAVE CONTACT WITH CLI ENTS, AND I AM NOT , ARE YOU TAKING THE POSITION THAT THEY CANNOT EVEN WORK AS A PARALEGAL?

NO , YOUR HO NOR , NOT AT ALL , JUSTICE LE WIS. I AM TAKING THE POSITI ONTHEY ARE NOT TO HAVE DIRECT , FACE TO FACE CONTACT INDEPENDENT OF A SUPERVISOR Y ATTORNEY .

THE LAWYER , YOU MEAN , THE PARALEGAL S MUST HAVE A LAWYER SI TTING BE SIDE THEM , EVERY TIME THE Y HAVE A FACE TO FACE WHAT CL IENT?

NO , YOUR HO NOR. A SUSPENDED OR DISBARRED OR RESIGNED ATTORNEY HOLDS A DIFFERENT CAPACITY THAN A PARALEGAL.

THAT SUCH PERSON, THAT IS WHAT I AM ASKING.

RIGHT.

A SUSPENDED LAWYER MUST HAVE, THAT LAWYER SITTINGTHERE , ANY TIME THAT THEY MEET WITH A CLIENT , THAT OTHERWISE A PARA LEGAL WOULD NOT.

THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED , SUSPENDED OR DISBARRED OR RESIGNED ATTORN EYS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE THAT DIRECT FACE TO FACE CONTACT WITH THE CLIENT, BECAUSE OF THE DANGER, BECAUS E THEY HAVE BEEN ADMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW , THAT THEY WILL B E PERCEIVED AS HAVING A LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW.

IF YOU DIRECT ME TO WHAT RULE THAT IS, PLEASE.

3-6.1. IT DISCUSSES THE EMPLOYMENT OF CERTAIN ATTORNEYS WHO HAVE BEEN

I I AM SORRY . I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT JUSTICE WELLS.

I WAN TED TO FOLLOW-UP ON JUSTICE CANTERO 'S QUESTION , WHEN YOU CAN, AS TO WHAT ELSE , AND IF YOU WOULD , ALSO , DISCUSS WHETHER THIS WAS AN ISOLATED SITUATION THAT THE BAR WAS , THAT THE EVI DENCE SHOWED OCCURRED OR WAS THIS A SERIES OF SITU ATIONS WHEREHE WAS TAKING PE OPLE , A LOT OF PEO PLE TO THE DRIVERS LICENSE BUREAU, OR WHAT EVER HE WAS DOING, DID THE BARCOME UP WITH A NUMBER OF THESE IN STANCES , OR WAS THIS AN ISOL ATED SITUATION?

OK AY. THERE WERE NOT A N UMBER OF INSTANCES BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE FL ORIDA BARWITH REGA RD TO THE DRIVERS LICENSE PARTY . ACTUALLY TO BO RROW A PHRASE , THE N UT OF THIS COCONUT IS THE AFFIDAVIT. THIS COURT HAD SUSPENDED MR . BOLAND FOR ENGAGING IN DIS HONEST CONDUCT IN THE FARINA CASE.THE TWO-YEAR SUSPENSION CASE INVOLVED SUBORDINATING A JURY AFFIDAVIT , DIRECTING A CLIENT TO DISRE GARD A N ORTH CAROLINA COURT OR DER, AND IT , A LSO , INVOLVES HIS FILING A DISSOLUTION I N HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, KN OWING THAT THE SIX-MONTH RESIDENCY HAD NOT BEEN REQU IRED, AND I N FACT IN THAT CASE, THE COURT SAID , WERE IT NOT FOR THE MITIGATION THAT THE REFEREE G AVE TO MR. BOLAND REG ARDING HIS ALCOHOLISM, THIS COURTMIGHT HAVE BEEN INCLINED TO ENTER A HA RSHER SANCTION.

IS SO THERE I S A WRITTEN OPINION IN THAT TWO -YEAR SUSPENSION CASE?

YE S, YOUR HONOR.

I THOUGH T HE SAI D IT WASA STIPULATIO N.

IT IS A WR ITTEN O PINION , DECEMBER 4, 1997. SIX MON THS AFTER THAT .

WAS THERE STIPULATION IN THAT CASE?

THERE WAS NOT A STIPULATION IN THE R AINES FARINA CASE.IN THE SUMMER TON CASE,THERE WAS A STIP ULATION .

THERE IS A SECOND CASE?

YES, YOUR HONOR.

TWO CASES I N 1994 THAT LED TO THE TWO- YEAR SUSPENSION?

NO. THE RAINS FARINA CASE WAS THE ON LY CASE THAT INVOLVED THE TWO-YEAR SUSPENSION.

THERE WAS NO STIPULATION IN THAT CASE.

THERE WAS NO STIPUL ATION. THAT WAS T R IED AND IT WAS APPEALED , AND THIS COURT UPHELD THE REFEREE'S FI NDING ON AP PEAL AND SUSPENDED HIM FOR TWO YEARS.

IS IT IMPORTANT TO US , IN LOOKING A T WHETHER SOME SUSPENDED ATTORNEY SHO ULD BE DISBARRED FOR A S I NGLE ACT OF PRACTICING LAW, WHAT THE NATURE OF THE SUSPENSION WAS OR DO ES THE BAR, IN OTHER W ORDS , DOES THE BAR ALWAYS JUST SEEK DISB ARMENT , WHEN THERE IS A PRACTICE , AN ACT , OF WHAT THE BAR SAYS IS PRACTICING LAW OR VIOLATING THE RULES WHILE SUSPENDED? CAN YOU TELL US THAT . BECAUSE YOU WERE A BOUT TO SAY THAT THE AFFIDAVIT WAS SIGNIFICANT, THAT IS THE NUTOF THE COC ONUT , BECAUSE OF WHAT I ASSUME YOU WERE ABOUT TO SA Y IS THAT T HERE WAS A PATTERN, HERE, OF FALSIFY ING DOCUMENTS.IS THAT

YES , JUSTICE PAR IENTE. THIS COURT HAS ROUTINELY ENHANCED DISCIPLINE , WHENEVER THERE HAS BEEN SUBSEQUENT OR CUMULATIVE ACT OF MISCONDUCT , OF THE SAME MISCONDUCT, AND IN THIS CASE , F ROM WAS , A GAIN IN THIS CASE, THE RE WAS , AGAIN , THERE WAS A FRAUDULENT ACTON THE PART OF THE RESPONDENT , IN OBTAINING HIS CLIENT'S SIGNATURE ON THE AFFIDAVIT, THEN TAKING THE AFFIDAVIT TO S E CURE THE CHECK AND SIG NING WITHOUT HIS CLIENT'S AUTHORIZATION, HIS CLIENT'S N AME ON THE BACK OF A CH ECK .

IS THAT PART OF THE JUDGE'S FINDINGS, THE REFEREE 'S FINDINGS?

YES , YES , JUSTICE CANT ERO , IT IS , AND THE TESTIMONY OF MR. JIMENEZ , THE CLIENT IN THAT CASE, IT IS UNEQUIVOCAL THAT HE DIDN 'T OFFER MR . BOLAND THE AUTHORITY TO SIGN HIS NA ME TO THE CHECK , NORDID HE AUTHORIZE HIM TO K EEP $7.

OF THE MONEY, AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MR. BOLAND WAS FOUND GUILTY OF IN THE FIRST CASE, THE FARINA CASE AS WELL , AND THAT WAS CONVERTING F UNDS THAT HAD BEEN G IVEN TO HIM , AND ONE OF THE THIN GS THAT , THE JUDGE FOUND , ALSO , THE REFEREE FOUND , IS THAT MR . JIMENEZ WAS NEVER ADVISED THAT MR . BOLAND WAS SUSPENDED , AND AN AFFI DAVIT THAT IS SUBMITTED IN THE SANCTIONS HE ARING , AND MR . BOLAND ACKNOWLEDGED THIS ON THE RE CORD , INDICATES THAT HE DID NOT COMPL Y WITH THE BAR RULES REQUIRING HIM TO NOTIFY HIS CLIENTS , BY GIVING THEM A CO PY OF THESUPREME COURT ORDER. NOW , HAD HE DONE THAT IN THIS CASE , HIS EFFECTIVE SUSPENSION DATE WAS JANUARY 5 , 1998. I DO UBT SIX MONT HS LATER , THAT MR . JIMENEZ WOULD HAVE SIGNED THIS AFFIDAVIT , GIVING HIM THE AUTHORITY T O TAKE POSSESSION OF HIS FU NDS, AND I T CERTAINLY WAS AN ACT OF PRACTICING LAW. MR. BOLAND INDICATES THAT I T WASN'T AN AFFIDAVIT . PAR DON ME . B UT MR . BOLAND DRAFTED THE DOCUMENT. HE COULD WELL HAVE INCLUDED IN THAT DOCUMENT , HIS AUTHORIZATION TO ENDORSE THAT CHECK , TO TAKE THE $750. HE DIDN'T INCLUDE THAT IN THE AFFIDAVIT. THE TESTIMONY AT TRIAL WAS THAT HE WAS PERMITTED TO COLLECT THE CHEC K.IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE GI VEN BACK TO MR . JIMENEZ AND DISPERSED TO THE BAIL BONDSMAN 750 AND 750 RETURNED TO HIS PARENTS WHO POSTED THE BO ND.

HE IS DOING THIS GR ATIS FOR MR. JIMENEZ , THE COLLECTING OF THE MONEY AND HELPING THE COUSIN?

HE HAS INDICATED ON NUMEROUS TIME S IN THE RECORD AND JUST PREVIOUSLY, THAT THIS WAS A FRIEND OF HIS , A ND HE WA NTED TO HELP HIM OUT .

WELL , LET'S ASSUME THAT THE BAR HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT MR. BOLAND PRACTICED LAW IN 1998 , WH ILE HE WAS SUSPENDED . NOW , AS WE STA RTED OUT THIS DISCUSSION WITH YOU, THIS HAS TAKEN A VERY LONG TIME , AND EVEN I F WE ASSUME THAT , BECAUSE HE PRACTICED LAW , THAT H E SH OULD BE SUBJECT TO DISBARMENT , WOULD THE DISBAR MENT SHOULDN'T THE DISBARMENT , REALLY , BE NONPRO TUNC TOTHAT TIME AND WOULDN'T THAT, T HEN , MAKE MR . BOLAND ELIGIBLE TO DO WHATEVER YOU HAVE TO DO , TO G ET BA CK IN THE BAR , ON CE YOU ARE DISBARRED? I MEAN, IT SEEMS TO ME WE ARE TA LKING ABOUT A 7-YEAR PERIOD OF TIME HERE, FROM 1998 TO 20 05 , AND SO ISN'T IN ALL FAIRNESS, BECAUSE THIS PROCEDURE TOOK SO LONG , SHOULDN'T ANY DISBARMENT, IF WE DECIDE THAT THAT IS THE PROPER PENALTY , BE NONPRO TUNC TO THAT TIME?

CERTAINLY THAT IS WITHIN THE DISC RETION O F THIS COURT, TO APPLY ANY DISCIPLINE ON A NONPRO TUNC BA SIS, AND THE POINT OF TIME THAT YOU GO BACK TO THAT IS IN QUESTION , PERHAPS, TO THE FILING OF THE RE PORT OF REFEREE. GETTING BACK TO A POINT EARLIER THAT WAS ASKED WITH REGARD TO THE DE LA Y , WHEN MR. BOLAND SO UGHT A CONTINUANCEAT THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEELEVEL, HE SUBMITTED A LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 1 2, STATING HAD HE NO OBJECTION , AND THAT IS PART OF THE RECORD , TO

NO OBJECTION TO WHAT?

TO THE 18 MONTHS THAT THECASE HAD BEEN SE TTING AT THE COMMITTEE , AND, FU RTHER , THAT IS IN WRITING IN THE EVIDENCE, F URTHER , THE REFEREE , ON A COU PLE O F OCCASIONS , INDICATED IN ATRANSCRIPT, THE RE ASONS THAT THERE WERE SOME FURTHER DELAYS IN THE CASE. I BE LIEVE HE WAS

WHAT ABOUT MITIGATION? YOU MENT IONED SOMETHINGABOUT A PR IOR ALCOHOL PROBLEM. TODAY MR. BOLAND INFORMED US OF A SER IOUS AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT. WAS THERE ANY TES TIMONY ABOUT THIS AUTO MOBILE ACCIDENT AND THE EF FECT OF IT ON HIM IN THE GRIEVANCE , IN THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION BELOW ?

NOT IN THE SUMMERTIME ONECASE , YOUR HO NOR NOT IN THE SUMMER TO N CASE , YOUR H ONOR.

IN THIS CASE?

ABOUT THE AC CIDENT , ITSELF?

AND ABOUT ANYTHING OF THAT BEING IN MITIGATION.

IT COMES U P IN THE RE CORD , AND HE RE WE ARE STRUGGLING , BECAUSE WE HAVE THREE DIFFERENT CASE S THAT THE JUDGES, THIS COURT HAS TAKEN JUDICIAL NOTICE OF , AND IT DOES COME UP IN THE RECORD. THE ACCIDENT HAPPENED IN JULY 1999 , THOUGH, AND WHEN MR . BOLAND WAS DISCUSSING IT , INCLUDED IN HIS BRIEF ON PAGE 4, THAT THAT WAS THEREASON HE WASN'T ABLE T O PA Y THE AG REED RESTI TUTION IN THE SUMM ERTON CASE , THAT IS ABSOLUTELY FA LSE , AND THE RECORD BEARS THAT OUT.THE ACCIDENT WAS IN JULY 1 999 , AND THE STIPULATION IN THE SUMMERTON CASE WAS SIGNED JULY 29 , '98.

OKAY. SO IS THERE STILL RESTTITUTION OUTSTANDINGTHEN?

THERE WERE TWO CONT EMPT HEARINGS. THE LAST IN THAT CASE, MARCH26, 1999 , IN WHICH MR . BOLAND, AG AIN, REAFFIRMED HIS AGR EEMENT TO PAY. ON AP RIL 14 , 1999, HE FILED BANKRUPTCY. SUBSEQUENTLY NA MING THEFLORIDA BAR , MS. RAINES , MR . JIMENEZ AND THE SUMMER TON S AS CLAIMANTS , AND THE F EES IN THE TWO-YEAR SUSPENSION CASE TO THE BAR , HAVE BEEN DISCHARGED. THEY WERE DISC HARGED MAY 2 5, 2000. THAT ALLO WED THERE TO BE AN OPPORTUNITY FO R MR. BOLAND TO PAY HIS FEES AT SOME POINT, BECAUSE THOSE CO STS OF O VER $4,000 , WERE WIPEDOUT , BUT GOING BACK TO YOUR QUESTION, JUSTICE QUINCE , BECAUSE MR. BOLAND HAS NOT PAID HIS FEES FOR A PERIOD IN EXCESS OF FIVE YEA RS, THE R ULES PROVIDE THAT HIS STATUS AS MEMBER OF THE FLORIDA BAR , HAS LA PSED , AND THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO REAPPLY THROUGH THE BO ARD O F BAR EXAMINERS , IN ORDER TO REGAIN ADMI SSION .

SUSPENDED ATTORNEYS PAY THEIR BAR DU ES?

YES , YOUR HONOR, THEY DO , AND THEY MUST, ALSO , STAY UP WITH THE CLE REQUIREMENTS , AND THERE IS A REQUIREMENT THAT DUES ARE NOT ACCEPTED WHILE COS TS ARE UN PAID , B UTAS I INDICATE D IN THIS CASE , MR. BOLAND HAD AN OR DER OF DISCHARGE THAT HE PRO DUCED IN THESE PROCEEDINGS DATED M AY 25 , 2 000.

WERE THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT HE HAD TO PAY RESTITUTION TO, WERE T HOSE DISCHARGED?

YES, YOUR HONO R, THAT I S OUR UNDERSTANDING .

CHIEF JUSTICE: JUSTICE LEWIS?

NO.

THIS COURT HAS CORRECTLYFOUND THAT THE REFEREE IS IN THE BEST POS ITION TO JUDGE THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES , THE DEMEANOR , THEIR ATTIRE, THEIR TESTIMONY, IN THIS CASE THE REFEREE FOUND THAT MR . BOLAND WAS UNTRUTHFUL. HE WAS UNTRUTHFUL ABOUT WHAT HE DID FOR THIS CLIENT, IN THE COLUMB IA COUNTY CASE. I F YOU LOOK BACK TO EXHIBIT 1 1 , IN A WHERE ARE THOSEFINDINGS THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT , BECAUSE THE REFEREE'S REPORT IS PRETTY SLIM. DID HE MAKE THOSE ON THERECORD OR SOMETHING?

THERE WERE N O FINDINGS ON THE RECORD, OTHER THAN WHAT IS INCLUD ED IN THE REPORT . THE REFEREE DID, DEFINITELY , FIND THAT MR. BOLAND WAS UNTRUTHFUL WITH RE GARD TO THE MOTION FOR SUPPRESSION. IN HIS IN ITIAL RESPONSE, WHICH BY THE WAY , HIS TESTIMONY IN TRIAL, HE SAIDTHAT THAT INITIAL RESP ONSE, DATED 4-15-99 WAS CLOSER IN TIME TO WHEN IT HAPPENED , S O IT WAS PROBABLY MORE ACCURATE. HE SAID THAT HE DR OVE UP AND VIEWED THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS IN THE CASE THAT WAS PE NDING IN COLUMBIA COUNTY. NOW , THE MOTION TO SUPP RESS WAS NOT FILED UNTIL JANUARY 28 , 199 8. THAT WAS AF TER HIS EFFECTIVEDATE OF SUSPENSION .

CHIEF JUSTICE: JUSTICE CANTERO, DO YOU WANT ANYFURTHER RESPONSE? OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.THANK YOU .

I WAN T TO CLEAR UP A LITTLE CONFUSION . WHEN ONE FI LES A BANKRUPTCY , ONE IS UNDER THE OBLIGATION TO L IST EVERY CRED ITOR. FAILURE TO LIST A T CREDITOR IS A PREFERENCE AND IT IS ILLEGAL. WHEN I FILED BANKRUPTCY , I HAD TO LIST E V ERY CRED ITOR. WHEN I MA DE THE STIPULATION TO DIS MISS THE SUMMERTON CASE, IN THAT STIPULATION, I PROVIDED THAT, AS A CONDITION TO M Y READMISSIONTO THIS BAR , THAT I WOULD PAY THE MONEY . AND THAT IS IN EACH ONE OF THESE CASES. I INTE ND TO PAY THE MONEY , IF I AM READMITTED . THERE IS NO INTENT TO GET AWAY WITH SOMETHING HE RE . NOW, I AM INDICATING BEFORE,ON D I RECT

ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO PAY THAT MONEY AS A CONDITION OF READMISSION?

I SPECIFICALLY PUT THAT IN THERE , Y ES, MA'AM. 1 850 DOLLARS. I HAVE GOT A $ 350 ON FEE ON A FIRST-DEGREE MU RDER $3500 FEE ON A FIRST-DEGREE M URDER APPELLATE CASE. M Y FEE WAS $3500. BART SAID IT WAS EXCESSIVE. I DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE AFIGHT WITH THE BAR. I AM ON SUSPENSION. I HAVE GOT A BROKEN NECK. I WANT ED TO GET R ID OF IT AND DO THE RIGHT THING. YOU DISM ISS THAT CASE AND I WILL PAY THE MONEY AS A CON DITION OF REINSTATEMENTTO THE BAR , AND THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED. NOW

CHIEF JUSTICE: MR. BOLAND , YOU , A LSO , N O W YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.DO YOU WANT TO CONCLUDE?

YES. THERE IS, ALSO , I AM NOT SUPPOSED TO ARGUE THE FA CTS HERE, BUT THERE WAS A RECUSAL MOTI ON THAT HAS BEEN FILED ON ALL THR EE, AND ITHINK THE FACTUAL PROCESS IS TAINTED.

CHIEF JUSTICE: WE HAVE YOUR BRIEF ON THAT.

YES.

CHIEF JUSTICE: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE COURT WILL TAKE ITS MORNING RECESS OF 15 MINUTES.

MARSHA L: PLEASE RISE.