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. David A. Barrett


CHIEF JUSTIC E: THE NEXT CASE ON THE COURT'S CAL ENDAR THIS MORNING IS THE FLORIDA BAR VERSUS BARRETT. THE PARTIES ARE READY?

WE ARE .

CHIEF JUSTICE: ALL RIGHT. MR . BIRCHFIELD.

YES, MA 'AM . MAY IT PLEA SE THE COURT. I AM JIM D A VIE, BAR COUNSEL FOR THE FLORIDA BA R.I REQUEST TO RESERVE SEVENMINUTES OF M Y TIME .

CHIEF JUSTICE: THAT'S RIGHT.THIS IS A BAR APPEAL.

YES. WE HAVE APPE ALED , SOLELY ON THE BA SIS OF THE QUANTUM OF THE DISCIP LINE. THE REFEREE IN THIS CASE RECOMMENDED A ONE-YEAR SUSPENSION. WE ARE AS KING YOU T O DIS BAR MR. BARRETT . THIS IS NOT AN OR DINARY SOLICITATION CASE , BUT WE SUBMIT THE MOST EGREGIOUS , THIS CASE, THE COURT HASEVER HEARD.

HOW DO YOU SEE THIS ASBEING DIFFERENT THAN THE DISCIPLINE THAT WAS GIVEN IN THE FLOWERS AND WAS IT VANTURE OR WHA TEVER THE NAME OF THE OTHER CASE WAS.

EXTREMELY DI VERSE. F LOWERS AND VAN TOUR WERE MINOR PLAYERS IN T HIS. BY COMPARISON , IT WAS A L MOST INCONSEQUENTIAL THIS. IS EXTREMELY EGREGIOUS. MR . FL OWERS AND MR . VANTUREWERE NOT INVOLVED I N LYING. THERE WAS NO IN-HOSPITAL SOLICITATION. THERE WAS NO SPLITTING OF THE FEES. BOTH OF THEM ONLY HAD THREE C LIENTS , AND M R . VAN TUR ESPECIALLY OVER A ONE-WEEK TIME. MR. VANTURE DIDN'T EVEN REALIZE , AT THE TIME THAT THE CLIENTS WERE BROUGHT IN , THAT THEY WERE IMPROPERLY SOLICITED. HE ONLY FOUND THAT OUT LATER , AND HIS PROBLEM WAS ONLY THAT HE DIDN'T WITHDRAW FROM REPRESENTING THE CL IENTS.IF HE HAD DON E SO , I WOULD HAVE C L OSED THE FILE .

THERE SE EMS T O BE TWO SEPARATE SERIES OF INCIDENTS . ARE YOU FOCUSING ON THE INCIDENT WHERE PERMISSION WAS GI VEN O R THE RUNNER WAS ENCOURAGED TO BE COME A MINISTER AND THEN G O TO THE HOSPITAL. COU LD YOU GIVE A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON HOW MR. BARRETT WAS INVOLVED , SPECIFICALLY IN THAT SC HEME.

TO US, THIS IS THE MOST EGREGIOUS OF THEM AL L. MR. BARRETT ENCOURAGED HIS R UNNER , CHAD COOPER , TO BECOME CERTIFIED AS A CHAPLAIN AT TALLAHASSEE MEMORIAL HO SPITAL.

IS I T , THE RECO RD IS CLEAR THAT IT WAS MR. BARRETT THAT ACTUALLY WAS THE MOVING FORCE IN THAT OCCURRING?

IT IS CLEAR , IN THAT MR. BARRETT , IT IS NOT CLEAR WHO SUGGES TED IT IN ITIALLY , BUT IT IS CLEAR THAT MR. BARRETT PAID FOR THE COURSE AND ENCOURAGED HIM TO DO SO BY IN FERENCE . ADDITIONALLY , CHAD COOPER DID GO , AND THE LAW FIRM DID P AY FOR HIS ATTENDANCE AT THE CHAPLAIN'S COUR SE. MR. BARRETT , A FTER THAT , TOLD CHAD COOPER THAT HE WOULD GIVE HIM $100,000 IF HE BROUGHT IN A BIG CASE.

NOW, WASN'T MR. COOPER ALREADY AN ORDAINED MINISTER?

YE S, HE WAS.

SO WOU LD HE , AS ORDA INED MINISTER, HAVE AL READY HAD ACCESS TO , HE COULD GO TOTHE HOSP ITAL T O T A LK TO PEOPLE, GIVE THEM THEIR COMMUNION S, THOSE K INDS OF THINGS, SO WH Y IS TA KING THE CHAPLAIN COURSE SO IMPORTANTHERE?

TAKING THE CHAPLAIN'S COURSE AS I UNDERSTAND IT, GIVES HIM EN TREE INTO EMERGENCY ROOM AND NEO-INTENSIVECARE. IT GIVES HIM THE OF FICE OF CHAPLAIN, SO THAT WHEN HE GOES TO SOMEBODY , HE CAN T ELL THEM I AM A HOSPITAL CHAPLAIN.

AND WERE THE PEOPLE THATHE WAS SEEING , RE LATED TO ANY CON GREGATION HE WAS SERVING , OR REFERRED BY DENOMINATIONAL PREFERENCE?

NO , THEY WERE NOT. THEY WERE STRANGERS. MR . COOPER WA LKED IN , MOLLY GLASS WAS THERE. HER SO N WAS DYING. HE WAS DR ESSED AS A PASTOR IN A DA RK SUIT WITH A LITTLE WHILE CLERICAL CO LLAR , AND HE OFFERED TO PRAY WITH THEM . HE, THEN , H A NDED THEM A BUSINESS CARD OF THE BARRETT LAW FIRM AND SUGGESTED THAT THEY CALL . SUBSEQUENTLY THEY DID CALL. THE SON DIED .

WAS THIS MR . HOFFMANN'S BUSINESS CARD OR WAS IT MR. BARRETT 'S BU SINESS CAR D? BECAUSE THERE IS SOME DISCREPANCY HERE, AS TOWHETHER OR NOT HE WAS ACTUALLY WO RKING FOR MR . HOFFMANN OR MR. BARRETT .

HE WAS , IT WAS MR . HOFFMANN'S CARD. BUT AS THE REFE REE FOUND , HE WAS WORKING FOR MR. BARRETT.

NOW, AS WE REVIE W THE MATTER TODAY, CERTAINLY IT IS NOT WHE THER WE WOULD SUBSTITUTE OUR JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF THE REFEREE BELOW AND THE SUGG ESTED SUSPENSION. THE STANDARD WE ARE LOOKINGTO IS WHET HER IT IS WITHIN THE RANGE OF ACCEPTABLE FLORIDA LAW, BECAUSE THERE IS A DIFFERENT RA NGE THAT WE COME IN HERE. WHAT DO YOU SEE AS THE MOST COM PARABLE CASE TO THE BEHAVIOR THAT WE ARE ARE DEALING WITH OR THAT YOU HAVE PRESENTED IN CONNECTION WITH THIS CASE, SO T HAT WE MAY APPLY THAT PARTICULAR STANDARD? WHI CH ONE OF THESE CASES , DOYOU THINK?

IN MY OPINION , THE WEINSTEIN CASE AND THE OUT-OF-STATE CASES THAT I HAVE CIT ED ARE MOST CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH IN -HOSPITAL SOLICITATION AND THE COMBINATION OF LYING.

YOU ARE S AYING THAT, REALLY , IF WE LOOK AT OUR REPORTED CASES INVOLVING SOLICITATION OR HAVING RUNNER S AND SPLITTING FEES WITH RUNNERS, THAT W E WON'T SEE ANYTHING THAT IS A S EXTENSIVE AS THIS , IS THAT YOUR POINT? IN OTHER WORDS THAT THE REFEREE , REALLY , AND WE LOOK AT A BENCHMARK THAT THIS CASE IS , R EALLY , THE KIND OF CASE THAT CR IES OUT FOR A GREAT ER SANCTION, BECAUSE OF, AND THEN THAT IS WHAT I WA NTTO MA KE S U RE I UNDERSTAND. THE COMBINATION OF THE IN-HOSPITAL SOLICITATION AND THEN, BUT THAT STOPPED A FTER A WHILE , AND WHY DID IT STOP?

BUT THEN , AFTER THAT , CHAD COOPER BECA ME AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR , AND YOU HAD THE SCENE OF HIM , OFTHE ACCIDENT REPORTS BEING OUT THE BACK DOOR OF DR . ANTOLICK'S OFFICE AND MR. BARRETT 'S PARTNER AND A SECRETARY HI DING IN THE BACK ALLEY AND TAKING THESE ACCIDENT REPO RTS I N BOXES TO MR. BARRETT 'S OFFICE , AND THEN SPLITTING THE F EE IN THE T ERRY CHARLESTON CASE. THAT WAS THE S E COND SCHEME. THE THIRD SCHE ME, HE AS KED R ANDY PE LLAN IF HE WOUL DN'T HACK INTO THE STATE'S COMPUTER SYSTEM, IN ORD ER TO GET INFORMATION O N WORKERS COMPATION CASES IMPROPERLY. THAT WAS FOUR YEARS AFTER , SO WE HAVE A FOUR-YEAR PATTERN OF SOLICITATION ANIMAL HE HAVE LENT INTENT , P LUS AND MALEVOLENT INTENT, PL US THE LYING TO THE REFEREE.

WHAT WAS THE LI E TO GET REFEREE?

THE LYING TO THE REFEREE WAS ABOUT THE BONUSES.

AND WHAT WAS THE EXPLANATION OF THE BONUSES? IT IS ALWAYS ON THE HE ELS OF DEFENDANT, SA YING I WASN 'T LYING . THE REFEREE JUST FOUNDDIFFERENTLY. CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW WE KNOW IT WAS LYING.

BECAUSE THE ANSWERS GIVEN WERE COMPLETELY LUT CRUISE. MR . BAR LE WD CRU ISE. MR. BARRETT SAID THAT HE FIT THAT FEE THAT, HE GAVE CHAD COOPER A BONUS BECAUSE OF PERSONAL SERVICES. CHAD COOPER WAS ALREADY BEING PAID $20, 000 A YEAR TO DO THAT VERY THIN G. WHY DO YOU NEED TO PA Y HIM EXTRA FOR PERSONAL SERVICES TO A CL IENT?

WHAT WAS THE AMOUNT OF THE BONUS COMPARED TO THE SALARY?

THE SAL WEREY WAS $ THE SALARY WAS $20,000 AND THE BONUS THAT YEAR , 19 96 , WAS $40500.

AS I RECALL THE TESTIMONY OF MR . COOPER , HE TESTIFIED DIRECTLY THAT HE WAS PAID $47500, FOR BRINGING IN THAT CASE. THE QUADRIPLEGIC CASE. IS THAT CORRECT?

YES, SIR. ALTHOUGH I THIN K HE HAD ANOTHER REASON.HE HAD TWO REASONS. PART OF IT WAS FOR BRINGING IN THE CASE, AND PART OF IT WAS FOR THE PERSONAL SERVICES.

AND WERE THER E OTHER INSTANCES THAT HE, IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS, PAID HIM $80,000 AND SOME OTHERAMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WAS CONSIDERED TO BE A BONE US?

IN THE PRIOR YEAR A BONUS?

IN THE PRIOR YEAR, HE PAID A $2 0,000 BONUS AND IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR HE PAID HIM A $20,000 BONUS, SO IT WAS A TOTAL OF $80,000.

WHAT ABOUT S E NDING COOPER TO SOLICIT BUSINESS ON A VALUE JET , WAS THAT A SEPARATE IN CIDENT, AND DID THAT INVOLVE THIS PARTICULAR RESPONDENT? IN OTHER WORDS T RYING TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THINGS THAT MR. HO FFMANN DID AND MR. BARRETT DID .

VA LUE JET INC IDENT, THAT IS BA SED U PO N MR. BARRETT'S O WN TEST IMONY , WHICH THE REFEREE FOUND TO B E NOT CREDIBLE, AND THE ENTRY IN THE BOOKKEEPING RECORDS THAT SHOW THAT THE LAW FIRM DID PAY THAT $ 947 FOR HIM TO FLYTO BOTH PL ACES , AND MR. BARRETT WAS A MICROMANAGER OF HIS OFFICE AND KNEW ABOUT AL L OF THE FINANCES, ALL THE TESTIMONY IS THAT ANY MONEY THAT WENT OUT OF THAT FIRM, HE K NE W A BOUT IT.

DID THE BAR ASK FOR DISBARMENT BE LOW? DID THEY U RGE DISBARMENT TO THE REFEREE?

YES , WE DID .

CHIEF JUSTICE: I THINK YOU ARE IN YOUR REBUTTAL, IF YOU WOULD LIKE RE SERVE SOME TIME.

I WOULD LIKE TO RESERVE. THANK YOU.

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. MY NAME I S GIL BIRCHFIELD AND J ACK WE ISS I S CO-COUNSEL IN THIS MATTER AND MR. BARRETT IS IN THE AUDIENCE.

COUNSEL , YOU HAVE A MOUNTAIN TO CLIMB. THIS APPEARS TO B E THE CLASSIC COURTS' AND BAR'S AND PUBLIC'S WORST F E AR, AND THAT IS THAT WE HAVE LAWYERS OUT THERE THAT ARE ACTUALLY PAYING PE OPLE , IN THAT THIS CASE, PER HAPS , THE - - IN THIS CASE , PERHAPS , THE MOST , W ORST SCENE IMAGINABLE , THAT IS ACT UALLY PAYING SOMEBODY WHO IS A MINISTER , TO SOLICIT CASES F ROM PEOPLE WHO WERE IN GREAT DIS TRESS , BOTH PHYSICALLY AND EMOTIONALLY, YOU KNOW , BECAUSE OF INJURIES OR HEALTH ISS UES. SO I T LO OKS LIKE , AS I SAID INITIALLY , OUR WORST FEAR TO COME TRUE, SO CA N YOU EXPLAIN TO THIS COURT WHY THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, AND AS I READ THE REFEREE'S ORDER, REALLY, HE HAS FOUND AG AINST YOUR CLIENT ON CREDIBILITY AND E VERY OTHER ISSUE WHERE THE COURT IS ENTITLED TO DO THAT OR THE REFEREE I S ENTI TLED TO DO THAT , DOWN THE LINE. IN TERMS OF CREDIBILITY, BELIEVE ABIL ITY , SO CAN YOU BELIEF ABILITY , SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO THIS COURTWHY YOU BELI EVE YOUR CLIENT SHOULD NOT BE DISB ARRED FORWHAT APPEARS TO BE AS EGREGIOUS OF CONDUCT AS THIS COURT HAS SE EN?

I CAN 'T , BUT FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO DISC USS THE REFEREE'S FINDINGS FOR A MOMENT, BECAUSE THAT SEEMSTO BE THE BASIS OF OR THE PREMISE FOR YOUR COMMEN TS.

A M I C O RRECT THAT THE REFEREE DOWN THE LINE , REALLY, W ITH REFERENCE TO CREDIBILITY AND THE RESOLUTION OF FACTUAL DISPUTES, HAS FOUND AG AINST YOUR CLIENT DOWN THE LIN E?

I CANNOT TELL THAT, YOUR HONOR . AND I THINK ABOUT THE RECENT CASE YOU HAD , HAVING TO DO WITH A SITUATION WHERE A COURT BELOW CO PIED VERBATIM , THE PROPOSED FIN DINGS OF F ACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAWOF ONE OF THE PARTIES. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED HERE .

LET ME ASK YOU THIS , THOUGH, WHAT THIS REFEREE FOUND , I UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM WITH WHETHER THE ORDER IS VERB ATIM , THE BAR'S ORDER , BOTH SI DES SUBMITTED ORDERS HERE , BUT THE FINDING THAT MR. BA RRETT DID SET UP THIS SCHE ME WITH THE CHAPLAIN, THAT IS IN THE RECORD HERE. I LOOK AT THE TESTIMONY OF CHAD COOPER , WHICH THE REFEREE COULD FIND , AND IT SAYS, DID YOU EVER A TTEND THE CHAPEL TR AINING COURSE AT TALLAHASSEE ? Y ES, I DID . WHEN WAS THAT ? I DON'T REME MBER THE EXACT YEAR. WHOSE IDEA WAS IT FOR YOU TO DO THAT? A FTER HAVING THOUGHT ABOUT IT, AFTER HAVING GIVEN M Y FIRST STATEMENT TO CLAY MASON IT REREFRESHED MY RECOLLECTION. ORIGINALLY IT WAS MR. BARRETT 'S IDEA. CAN YOU DESCRIBE HOW THAT CAME ABOUT, AND HE TAL KS ABOUT HOW THE REGULAR CHAPLAIN OUT THERE WAS A FRIEND OF BARRETT'S AND B ARRETT SAID , TOLD HIM IT WAS A GOOD IDEA TO GO OUT THERE AND BE A CHAP LAIN.

YOUR HO NOR, THAT IS CERTAINLY ONE OF THE VERSIONS IN THE RECO RD. THERE IS ANOTHER VERSION WHERE MR. COOPER SAYS IT MAY HAVE BE EN MY IDEA , AND NOT REALLY SURE HOW IT CAME ABOUT. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER I THOUGHT ABOUT IT, WHETHER MR. BARRETT THOUGH T ABOUT IT.

THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE LAW FIRM PAID FOR THIS COURSE.

THAT'S CORRECT .

THAT , ITSELF , I ME AN, WHAT COULD JUSTIFY A LAW FIRM PAYING FOR A CHAPLAIN'S COURSE FOR SOMEBODY WHO IS THEIR EMPLOYEE ?

YOUR HONOR , THIS GENTLEMAN , IF MR. BARRETT 'SVERSION IS CORR ECT , THOUGHTIT WAS A GOOD IDEA AND WANTED TO DO IT , AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS IS CERTAINLY AN UNUS UAL

HOW WOULD IT HELP , WHAT , ADD CREDIBILITY WHEN HE WENT OUT AND SOLICITED KLEINS?

YOUR HONOR , IF THIS WAS TO SOLICIT CLIENTS IN THE HOSPITAL , HE DID A MI GHTY POOR JOB. THE ONLY CLIENT THAT CAME INTO THIS FIRM FROM HIS HOSPITAL VIS IT WAS THE MOLLY G LASS TRAGEDY IN THE LOSS OF HER SON , WREN.HE DID NOT GO TO MOLLY GLASS OF HIS OWN VIOLATION. CHAPLAIN HAWKINS OF HIS OWN HAVELITION. CHAPLAIN HAWKINS HIS OWN VOLITION. CHAPLAIN HAWKINS SENT HIM THERE.HE WAS EITHER A CHAPLAIN OR WAS TR YING TO BEC OME A CHAPLAIN. THE FIRM PAID FOR IT .

I GUESS WE ARE GOING OVER THE FINDINGS OF FACT , AND JUSTICE ANSTEA D'S Q UESTION SAID YOU HAVE GOT THESEFINDINGS OF FACT AND YOU KNOW THAT , HOWEVER MUCH W E MIGHT HAVE A LIT TLE LEEWAY WITH DISCIPLINE , WHEN IT COMES TO THE REFEREE , WE G IFT REFEREE LIKE WE GIVE THE TRIAL JUDGE WHO IS HEARING A NONJURY CASE , WIDE DEFERENCE , AND SI NCE WE ARE UNABLE TO BE THE JUDGES OF CREDIBILITY , SO YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WHEN YOU SAY THERE IS ANOTHER VERS ION, THAT THE REFEREE FOUND AGAINST YOU ON THAT AND THERE IS EV IDENCE AS JUSTICE WE LLS POINTS OUT IN THE RECORD, TO SUPPORT EVERY FACTUAL FINDING THAT THE REFEREE MADE A S TO GUILT , SO I WOULD THINK THAT YOUR BEST BET MIGHT BE TO SAY , ASSUMING THESE FINDINGS OF GUILT , IN ANS WER TO JUSTICE ANSTEAD'S QUESTION, WHY ISN'T THE ULTIMATE SANCTION OF DISBARMENT REQUIRED, TO , AS NOT ONLY FAIR TO, IN THIS CASE, BUT AS A DETERRENT ANDA WORD TO OTHER LAWYERS IN THIS PUBLIC , THAT WE TAKE THIS T YPE OF ACTION SERIOUSLY , AND WE WILL NOT TOLERATE LAWYERS DOING THIS T YPE OF SOLICITATION? WHY IS THAT NOT THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION?

BECAUSE I DO NOT BE LO AF THAT HIS CONDUCT IS AS E GREGIOUS AS THE CONCLUSION THE REFEREE CAME TO . ONE IN STANCE OF SOLICITATION , IN QUOTES , A T THE HOSPITAL , AFTER SHE CAME IN AND SIGNED HER CONTRACT, OVER A MO NTH LATER . THAT IS THE ONLY IMP ROPER ALLEGATION OF IMPR OPER SOLICITATION, WHILE HE WAS AN EM PLOYEE

THE REFEREE DO ES NOT PAINT A PICTURE, HOWEVER , OF AN ICE LIGHT OF AN ISOLATED INC IDENT, WHERE P ERHAPS A LAWYER LET HIS GUARD DOWN AND A CASE WAS BROUGHT TO HIM BY SOMEBODYAT THE HOSP ITAL SUCH AS A , THE REFEREE , WOULDN'T YOU AGREE, PAINTS A MUCH DARKER PICTURE, IN TE RMS OF YOUR CLIENT'S MOTIVATION AND ACTIONS HERE. DOES HE NOT?

YOUR H ONOR , I BELIEVE THE BAR IS A REFEREE SEE ING EYEDOG , JUST THAT , BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE REFEREE SAID , OTHER THAN THAT HE SIGNEDTHIS ORDER.

DOESN'T HE GIVE REFERENCE TO THE 21 CLIENT S, NOT ONLY IS IT IN THIS ORDER BUT IS IN COLLOQUY WITH COUNSEL , AND WHEN BAR COUNSEL ASKS DID YOU FIND G UILT AS TO MOLLY GLASS AND DID YOU FIND GUILT AS TO THE 2 1 CLIENTS THAT I HAD SUBMITTED IN MY PROPOSAL TO THE REFEREE , THE COURT'S ANSWER TO THAT IS YES , SO F ROM THE JUDGE'S OWNSTATEMENTS, NOT JUST ORDER , THAT H E FOUND GU ILTY NOT JUST AS T O MOLLY G L ASS BUT AS TO 21 CLIENTS THAT HE HAD BROUGHT TO THE FIRM?

THAT IS WHAT HE SAID. YOUR HONOR, I DO NOT BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THAT FINDING. MR. BARRETT SI GNED TEN CHECKS TO CHAD COOPER , AFTER HE HAD BEEN TERMINATED .

BUT LET'S G ET, REALLY, TO THE HEART OF THIS. THOSE 2 1 PEO PLE WERE HAD, I N FACT , B R OUGHT TO THE CLIENT FROM THOSE, I GUESS IT WAS A CHIROPRACTOR'S OFFICE , MR . COOPER WOULD GO THERE AND G ET ALL OF THESE FI LES OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAD GONE TOTHE DOCTOR'S OFFICE AND BRING THEM BACK TO MR. BARRETT 'S OFFICE. ISN'T THAT A FACT, AND ISN'T THAT WHAT THE REFEREE FOUND ?

THAT IS A FACT.

AND SO

HE BROUGHT THEM BACK TO MR. HOFFMANN.

WHAT IS WR ONG WITH THAT FACT, I MEAN , IF THAT IS TRUE, THEN THESE ARE CLIENTSTHAT WERE, ALSO , BROUGHT TO HIM BY MR. COOPER.

MR. BARRETT IS THE ONE BEFORE YOU TO DAY NOT MR . HOFFMANN, NOT THE LAW FIRM , AND MY POINT I S THAT MR . - -

THESE ONE INCI DENTS WERE A BOX OF THESE FILES WERE BROUGHT DIRE CTLY TO MR. BARRETT 'S OFFICE . ISN'T THAT WHAT THE REFEREE FOUND , ALSO?

IS THAT AN IMPROPER SOLICITATION? I DO NOT BELIEVE SO.

WHAT WAS THE $10,000 A MONTH THAT THEY WERE PAY ING MR. COOPER A T THIS T IME, WHAT SERVICES WAS H E RENDERING , OTHER THAN GOI NGTO THE CHIROPRACTIC OFFICE? $10,000 A MONTH IS A PRETTY G OOD SALARY. SO WHAT WERE THEY PAYING HIM FOR, OTHER THAN SOLICITING ?

MR . COOPER OWED M R . HOFFMANN MONEY. MR . COOPER SAYS I DID NOT ASK FOR COMPENSATION. MR . HOFFMANN VOLUNTEERED TO PAY ME $ 2 00, SO THAT I COULD REPAY, THIS WAS MY INTERPRETATION, SO THAT , THE MONEY WOUND UP GOING TO MR . HOFFMANN IN REDUCTION OF HISDEBT. THAT IS THE GENESIS O F THE $200.

WAS THE $200 BEING PAID BY THE CHIROPRACTOR?

THE RECORD , I BELIEVE , REFLECTS THAT MONDAY FO LLOW ING COOPER 'S DISCHARGE , HOFFMANN CALLED HIM UP, AND HE SAYS MY PART NER DID YOU DIR T.I HAVE TAL KED ABOUT DR . ANTOLY. HE HAS GOT A GOOD RATE DEAL FOR YOU. YOU SH OULD CALL HIM. DR. A N TOLIC SAYS I WILL PAY YOU $1 0,000 A MONTH. YOUR JOB IS TO GO TO THE P OLICE STATION , GET ACCIDENT REPORTS , M AKE COLD CALLS ON THESE PEOPLE , AND I HAVE GOT TWO LE GAL OPINIONS THAT SAY THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING W RONG WITH A DOCTOR DOING THAT. I THINK THE ONLY THING THAT F ELL DOWN THERE , WAS THEFACT THAT HE DID NOT GET PAID $10,000 A MONT H. I THINK THE RECORD SHOWS THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IT WAS REDUCED TO $6,000 A MONTH.

WHAT IS THE EXPLANATION ON, I MEAN , EVERYONE RECALLS THE V ALUE JET TRAGEDY AND HOW LAWYERS DESCENDED ON THE FAMILIES, AND THE FACT THAT SOMEONE IS NOT SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING A CLIENT , ISN'T THE , DOESN'T EXCUSE THE UNDERLYING VI OLATION. WHAT IS THE EXCUSE , SO TO SPEAK, FOR SENDING A R UNNER DOWN TO THE V A LUE JET TRAGEDY AND ATTEMPTING TO GET BUSINESS?

CHAD COOPER WENT TO CHICAGO. CHAD COOPER WENT TO M IAMI . SOMEONE IN THE LAW FIRM ASKED HIM IF HE KN EW AN YONE IN THE CR ASH. THE RECORD DOES NOT SAY IT WAS MR. BARR ETT. HIS RESPONSE IN THE RECORD , IS THAT I KNEW ONE OF THE PARENTS OR CHILDREN OF ONE OF THE VICTIMS THAT LIVES IN MIAMI , AND I KNEW SI MILAR RELATIONSHIP IN CHICAGO. HE WENT TO MI AMI , TO MEET WITH THE PE RSON HE KNEW , AND WILLIE G ARY HAD ALREADY BEAT HIM THERE .

I GUESS WHAT I AM HE ARING HERE AND WHAT HAPPENED, WHAT THE BAR IS TALKING ABOUT, I THINK , AND THIS IS A TOUGH SITUATION , YOU ARE DE FENDING YOUR CLIENT, BUT IT SO UNDS AS IF YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE EXCUSES FOR WHAT THE RECORD APPEARS TO B E CLEAR VIOLATIONS OF THE E THIC A.M. RULES. IF WE , AG AIN, AS SUME THAT THESE ETHICAL VIOLATIONS WERE FOUND, CAN YOU TELL ME WHY , BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T C ROSS APPEA L AND SAY ONE YEAR WAS , OR DID YOU , ARE YOU SAY ING ONE YEAR IS TOO MUCH? ARE YOU GRE G .

YES, MA'AM.

SO WHAT IS YOUR SUGGESTION ARE YOU AGREEING

YES, MA'AM.

SO WHAT I S YOUR SUGGESTION?

WE ARE SUGGESTING THREE THINGS, BUT IT WAS WITH RELATIONSHIP TO CR OSS APPEAL AND PUNISH MENT , WHAT IS WARRANTED.WE SUGGESTED IT SHOULD BE THE SAME THING AS VANTURE OR FLOWERS.

WHICH WOULD BE?

TWEN TY D AYS .

TW ENTY .

TWENTY DA YS.

MR . COOPER SAYS THAT HE WAS PAID $2,000 BY MR . VANTURE. THE BAR'S FINDINGS SHOW , IF THEY ARE CRED IBLE , THAT MR. BARRETT PAID EIGHT CHECKS OF $200 E AC H TO MR . COOPER THAT.IS LESS THAN WHAT MR. VANTURE PAID.

IN THIS CASE , WE HAVE AN ATTORNEY WHO , OVER A PERIOD OF TIME , PAID IN EXCESS OF $80,000 TO MR . COOPER, DON'TWE?

YES. MAY I ADDRESS THAT , BECAUSE THE REFEREE'S FINDINGS , THEFINDINGS THAT ARE INTERESTING, THE REFEREE CONSIDERED WHA T HE SAID WERE THREE RE ASONS GIVEN. THERE WAS ACT UALLY A FOURTH REASON GIVEN , WHICH WAS IGNORED.

A FOURTH REASON GIVEN FOR WHAT .

FOR THE BONE US TO MR . COOPER . FOR THE BONUS TO MR. COOPER. PASTORING , PERSONAL SERVICES, COUNSELING, BUT THE FOURTH REA SON

IF IT WAS PERSONAL SERVICES, WHICH BRINGS UP ANOTHER QUESTION IN MY MIND , I F HE WAS GIVING PERSONAL SERVICES TO THE CLIENT .

THAT'S CORRECT.

THEN THE LAW FIRM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PAYING THOSEOUT OF THEIR MONEY , SHOULD THEY? THE LAW FIRM IS NOT ALLOWEDTO GIVE MONEY ON BEHALF OF THEIR CLIENT, ARE THEY ?

THE EXPLANATION THAT MR. BARRETT GAVE DOES NOT , IS NOT SHOWN AS THE FOURTH REASON ANYWHERE , IS THAT , IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CLIENT , HE INDI CATED WHEN HIS MONEY CAME IN, HE WANTED TO GIVE MONEY TO MR . COOPER FOR ALL OF THE WORK THAT HE HAD DONE .

THE CLIENT .

THE CLIENT.

IS THAT REFLECTED ON WHEN THE MONIES CAME IN AND YOU PREPARE A STATEMENT, IS THAT MONEY REFLEC TED ON THESTATEMENT AS COMING OUT OF THE CLIENT'S FUNDS?

NO , IT WAS NOT OUT OF THE CLIENT'S FUNDS. MR. BARRETT AND MR. HOFFMANN , ACCORDING TO MR. BARRETT'S TESTIMONY, AGREED THAT THAT SEEMED TO BE AN U NDUE BU RDEN ON MR . CHARLESTON AND THAT THE WERE SHOULD PICK THAT U P. WHEN THE SETTLEMENT WAS CONSUMMATED, THE FIRM GAVEMR. COOPER $12500 LESS WITHHOLDING. THE REMA INDER OF THE MONEY THAT IS COMPLAINED ABOU T, WAS PAID AT THE EN D OF THEYEAR, AFTER THE FIRM LOOKED AT THE PERFOR MANCE FOR THE WHOLE YEAR, PAID HIM I N TWO SEPARATE CH ECKS

CHIEF JUSTIC E: MR . BEFERN FIELD , YOUR T IME IS MR . BEFERN FI ELD , YOUR TI ME IS UP, AND IF YOU WAN TED TO JUST MAKE CONCLUDING REMARKS . REBUTTAL.

THANK YOU. I WILL BE VERY BRIEF. WE ASK THIS HONORABLE COURT TO SEND A MESSAGE TO ALL OF THE LAWYERS IN FLORIDA THAT THE COMBINATION OF IN -HOSPITAL ROOM SOLICI TATION AND LYING , MANDATES DIS BARMENT .

WAS THE CASE OF DISBARMENT, WAS THAT THE ATTORNEY PERSONALLY GOING TO THE HOSPITAL AND SOLICITING THE HOSP ITAL AND SOLICITING THE CLIENT, AS OPPOSED TO SENDING A RUNNER TO DO SO , AND DOES THAT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE?

THE WEINSTEIN CASE WAS A PERSONAL SOLICITATION , ALTHOUGH IT WAS ONLY AN ATTEMPT.IT WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL FORM THE OTHER OUT-OF-STATE CASES , INVOLVED BOTH, BOTH IN PERSON AND SENDING SOMEBODY E LSE TO DO IT . I SEE NO DIFFERENCE, E X CEPT THAT, IN THIS CASE , THE MANNER IN WHICH THE RU NNER WAS U SE D , DESECRATING THEOFFICE OF CHAPLAINS OF HOSPITALS , IS WAY BE YOND THE PA ELEMENT E. THAT SOUTH OF S IGHT . IS WAY BEYOND THE PA LE. THAT IS OUT OF SI GH T .

HOW DO WE DISTINGUISHTHIS CASE FROM FL OWERS AND VANTURE.

FLOWERS AND VANTURE WERE V ERY MINOR CASES AND THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST EGREGIOUS , AND THAT IS BECAUSE THEY WERE IN IT FOR A VERY LIMITED PERIOD OF TIME.MR. VANTURE EXPRESSED HIS SINCERE REMORSE. HE CAME TO US IMMEDIATELY AFTER THIS BECAME PUBLIC AND TOLD US , THRE W HIM SE LF ON THE MERCY OF THE FLORIDA BARAND TOLD US ALL ABOUT HOW IT HAPPENED AND HOW HE REGRETTED IT.

WAS THIS ONE INCIDENT?

FOR THOSE THREE CLIENTSTHAT HE SOLICITED , NOT KNOWING AT FIRST THAT THEY WERE IMPROPER BUT DID NOTWITHDRAW FROM THE REPRESENTATION. THAT IS A TREMENDOUS DIFFERENCE. WE CAN , ALSO , DISTINGUISH THIS VERY GREATLY, BECAUSE NEITHER ONE OF THOSE , VANTURE AND FLOW ERS, DIDTHIS IN THE HOSPITAL , EITHER IN PERSON OR BY AN AGENT , AND THAT IS AN EXTREMELY VAST DIFF ERENCE , IN-HOSPITAL AND NOT IN-HOSPITAL , AND, ALSO , N EITHER ONE OF THEM LIED AND NE ITHER ONE OF THEM SPLIT THE FEES WITH THEIR RUNNERS. NEITHER ONE OF THEM HAD MORE THAN ONE SCHEME. MR. BARRETT HAD THREE.

HOW CAN WE DISTINGUISHTHE REFEREE 'S ORDER AND FINDINGS HERE , FRO M WHAT THE BAR PRESENTE D? AS A PROPOSAL . YOUR PROPOSED FINDINGS OF F ACT AND ORDER , HOW DO WHAT YOU PROPOSED TO THE REFEREE DIFFER FR OM WHAT THE REFEREE ACTUALLY SIGNED?

THE REFEREE AGREED WITH ALMOST EVERYTHING THAT I SIGNED ,ENT FOR TWO THINGS EXCEPT FOR TWO THINGS. HE HE LD A HEARING ON THECAUSE , HE DISALLOWED $ 3,000 OF OUR CO STS AND HE DID NOT AGREE WITH MY RE QUEST FOR DISBARMENT AND HE SUBSTITUTED THEREFORE , THE ONE -YEAR SUSPENSION.OTHER THA N THAT, HE AGREED WITH MY PROPOSED RE PORT OF REFEREE , WHICH INCIDENTALLY , BOTH SI DES SUBMITTED TW ICE , TWO WRITTEN FINDINGS AND TWO COMPLETE PROPOSED REPORTS OF REFEREE.

CHIEF JUSTICE: IF THERE IS NO OTHER QUESTIONS.

THANK YO U.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BEFORE THE COURT CAL LS THE NEXT CASE , WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A TEN-MINUTE REC ESS, SO THE PART IES CAN GATHER THEIR MATERIALS AND , A LSO , BECAUSEJUSTICE CANTERO WI LL NOT BE SITTING ON THE NEXT CASE, SO WITH THAT , WE WILL HAVE OUR MORNING RECESS.

MARSHAL: PLEASE RISE.