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. Keith Douglas Baron


AND WE CA LL THE NE XT CASE. FLORIDA BAR VERSUS BAR ON. PARTIES READY. YOU MAY PRO CEED.

MR . ROW GUN BE VERLY PO HL FOR KEITH BARON .

WHAT SANCTION SHOULD BE IMPOSED? ANOTHER SANCTION SHOULD BEAN EXTENSION OF HIS SUSPENSION. HE HAS BEEN SUSPENDED S INCE JULY 2 0 00 AND THE EXTENSION SHOULD BE AN EXTENSION OF HIS SUS PENSION FOR ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE RE FEREE 'S REPORT, WHIC H WOULD BE UNTIL FEBRUARY 2005.

ISN'T THAT THE USUALSANCTION FOR PRACTICING LAW WHILE SUSP ENDED , DISBARMENT?

I WOULDN'T SAY IT IS A USUAL SANCTION. IT IS AN APPROVED SANCTION AND SANCTION AVAILABLE UNDER THE RULES OF T HE BAR, BUT THE KEY HERE , OF COUR SE, IS TO LO OK AT E ACH CASE AND COMPARE THE DIFFERENT CASES , TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THAT SANCTION, DISBARMENT, IS FAIR T O MR. BARRON , FAIR TO THE PU BLIC , AND FAIR TO THE BAR.

CLARIFY . AN OR DINARY DISBARMENT, IF I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY , IS FOR A PERIOD O F FIVE YEARS S THAT CORRECT?

TH AT IS CORREC T.

PERM ANENT , QUOTE , DISBARMENT, IS AN AN IMAL OF A DIFFERENT STRIPE. IS THAT COR RECT?

IT IS , AND IT IS RARE. THERE IS A CASE , WINTER, WHERE A PERSON WAS IN CONTEMPT 21 TIMES FOR PRACTICING LAW WITH OUT ALICENSE , AND TH AT WAS A PERMANENT DISBARMENT , BUT IN MOST OF THE CASES , THE DISBARMENT

IN OTHER WO RDS A DISBARMENT WITHOUT THE RIGHT TO REAPPLY.

THAT'S RI GHT. PERMANENT.

WHAT ARE WE DE ALING WITH HERE, THE RECOMMENDATION AS TO A PERMANENT?

YES, SIR. THE RECOMMENDATION .

BUT YOU ARE ARGUING AS OPPOSED TO A PERM ANENT , ARE YOU ARGUING THAT THE ORDINARY DISBARMENT WOULD BE MORE PROPRIETOR FOR A LESSER PENALTY?

I AM ARGUING FOR A LESSER PENALTY, BUT IF ORDINARY DISBARMENT WERE I MPOSED , THEN OUR POSITION WOULD BE IT SHOULD BE NON P RO. T UNCT TO JULY 2000, WHICH WOULD BASI CALLY B E A FIVE-YEAR DISBARMENT THAT WOULD EXPIRE IN JULY 2005.

WHEN WAS HE FI RST SUSPENDED?

JULY 2000.

HOW LONG WAS THAT SUSPENSION FOR?

TWO YEARS.

SHOULDN'T IT AT LE AST GO FROM THE TI ME OF THE END OF THE SUSPENSI ON? OTHERWISE YOU ARE TAKING A WAY S O ME OF THE SUSPENDED T IME.

WELL , I DON'T THINK WE ARE TAKING IT AWAY , JUSTICE C AN'T CAN'T JUSTICE CANTERO. I THINK WE ARE IM POSING THE DISBARMENT ON TO P OF THE SUSPENSION, OVER IT, BUT IT RESULTS IN BASICALLY A FIVE-YEAR DISBARMENT. IF IT WERE DONE NONE PRO TUNINGT T O JULY 2000 , HEWOULD BE BASICALLY OUT OF PRACTICE.

WHY WOULDN'T WE AT LEAST ENFORCE THE EN TIRE TE RM OF THE PREVI OUS SUSPENSION , BEFORE WE BE GIN ANY DISBARMENT?

BECAUSE WHETHER ONE LOOKSAT THE CASES, AND THE CASES B OWMAN , J ONES , GREEN , R O OD , HELPNER , THE MOST RECENT CASE DE CIDED BY THIS COURT , WAS A FIVE-YEAR DISBARMENT THAT WAS NON PRO T UNCT , AND YOU HAD A WH OLE SE RIES OF MISCONDUCT. HE PRACTICED WHILE SUSPENDED, CRIMINAL FEL ONY CONDUCT , MULTIPLE ACT S OF MISCONDUCT , VIOLATIONS OVER TEN YEARS , INJURING NUM EROUS CLIENTS , A ND IN THAT CASE , THE BAR , THE BAR SO UGHT DISBARMENT , AND THE COURT DISBAR RED, AND IT WAS FIVE YEARS NUN PRO TUNCT. UNTIL WHEN?

I BELIEVE IT WAS UNTI L

IN HEL PNER , IT WASN'T A COLLECTIVE SERIES THAT LEDTO THE DISBARMENT. DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION , JUSTICE QUINCE?

MY QUESTION IS BASICALLYIF WE ARE GOING TO BE FAIR TO THE BAR AND TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ALL OF THOSE FACTORS THAT YOU TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN YOU ARE IMPOSING DISCIPLINE , WHYNOT, THEN , IF WE ARE TALK ABOUT DISBARMENT , LET'SASSUME WE ARE, RUN IT FROM THE TIME T HAT HE ACTUALLY COMMITTED THE OFFENSE? I MEAN , THAT WOULD SEEM T O ME, TO BE A FAIR , SORT OF COMPROMISE. THESE THINGS HA PPEN WHEN, IN 2002 , 200 3?

2002 , I THINK IT WAS , OR 2 003 , WHEN THEY FILED THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM. BUT THAT WOULD RES ULT IN ACASE LI KE THIS , WHERE HE HAS BEEN SUSPENDED SI NCE 1990, FOR SOMET HING LIKE A SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD , AND OUR POSITION IS THAT SI MPLY

BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WHAT YOU HAVE HERE , IS HE HAD, THERE WERE ORIGINAL REASONS FOR THE SUSPENSION.

YES.

OK AY. AND IT WAS A TWO-YEAR SUSPENSION, CORRECT?

YES.

AND THEN AT THE PO INT WHERE IT WAS , HE WAS A BOUT READY OR COULD HAVE APP LIED FOR REINSTATEMENT , HE , THEN , COMMITS THESE ACTS OF PRACTICING LAW WHILE SUSPENDED.

IN DEED . HE DID APPLY

SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT,IF YOU START AT THAT POINT , I AM TR YING TO BE FAIR TO YOUR CLIENT, AL SO, IF YOU START AT THAT POINT , THEN YOU ARE THEN IMPOSING REAL SANCTIONS FOR ACTIONS TAKENAT THAT POINT .

AND HE DID APPLY FOR REINSTATEMENT , B Y THE WAY , JUSTICE QUINCE, WHICH WAS TURNED DOWN.I WANT THE RECORD TO BE C LEAR ON.THAT BUT HERE I S WHY I THINK THAT WOULD BE TOO EXT REME I N THIS SITUATION. THERE WERE TWO ACTS HERE, OF PRACTICING LAW WHILE SUSPENDED. ONE OF THEM WAS G IVING LE GAL ADVICE TO SOMEONE WHO WAS AFRIEND OF SOMEONE WHO LI VED IN THE APARTMENT COMP LEX , AND THE OTHER WAS PREPARING A MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE FORSOMEONE.HE NEVER APP EARED IN COURT. HE DID NOT REPRESENT HIMSELF AS SOME OF THE LAWYERS HAVE, IN THESE CASES.

HE ACTUALLY TA LKED TO THESE PE OPLE FACE TO FACE, WHICH IS SOME THING YOU ARE NOT SUPPOS ED TO DO, WHEN YOU ARE UNDER SUSPENSION , CORRECT?

ABSOLUTELY. THERE IS NO EX CUSE FOR THE TWO INSTAN CES , BUT MY POINT IS , IS THAT

HE NOT ONLY DID THAT. HE ALSO CHARGED A SUBSTANTIAL FEE.

HE DID. HE DID. I WOULDN'T SAY IT WAS SUBSTANTIAL.

IT WASN'T JUST A PRO B ONO EFFORT FOR THE

IT IS INDEFENSIBLE , AND WHEN ONE REA DS THESE CASES , THEY ARE DISTURBING AND TH EY ARE DISHEARTENING, TO READ THE KINDS OF THIN GS THAT HAPPEN, BUT THE K E Y I THINK , HERE , IS TO BRING SOME BALANCE TO THIS. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WASNOT DONE BY THE RE FEREE IN THIS CASE, IS T O LO OK AT THE MITIGATION, THE REF EREE HAD LOOKED AT THE MITIGATION BEFORE. MR. BARRON SU FFERS FROM MR. BARON SUFFERS FROM ATAXIA , MOTOR SPEECH ANDINABILITY TO MO VE. THERE WAS NOTHING THIS TIME ALTHOUGH THE REFEREE HAD PREVIOUSLY NOTED THE FACT

MR . RO GOW , PHYSICAL DISABILITIES, I AM SENSITIVETO, BUT I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THAT IMPACTS JUDGMENT. IF WE HAVE GOT A SITUATIONWHERE THE JUDGMENT AND ETHICS AND PROFESSIONISM MUST SUFFER , WE MAY HAVE A MORE SERIOUS PRO BLEM THAN JUST A PHYSICAL PROB LEM.

I , LET ME SAY THIS. I WOULD NOT SACRIFICE ETHICS ON THE ALTERNATE OR OF OF THE ALTAR OF A DISABILITY, SAYING THAT ONE I S TO BE EXCUSED

IT SE EMS THAT IS THE DIRECTION OF YOUR ARGUMENT. I AM CONCERNED WITH ARGUMENT THAT GOES IN THAT DIRECTION. I THINK IT DOES A DISSERVICE TO THOSE WHO DO HAVE PHYSICAL DISABILITIES AND TO SUGGEST THAT THAT IS A REASON FOR ET HICAL , VIOLATION OF ETH ICAL PROHIBITION S OR ENGAGING IN CONDUCT THAT IS CONTRARY TO ANY GO OD JUDG MENT, SEE MS TO BE , BOTH , DEMEANING TO THOSE INDIVIDUALS AND SUPER SILLIOUS TO T HEM , TO MA KE AN ARGUMENT SUCH AS THAT. TIME NOT MAK ING AN ARGUMENT , JUSTICE LEWIS. WHA T I AM SAYING IS, IN TERMS OF THE SANCTION , WE HAVE CONCED ED THAT THERESHOULD BE A SANCTION. W E DO NOT DE FEND THE UN ETHIC AL ACTS , BY ARE YOU SAYI NG IT SHOULD BE MITIGATION?

MIT IGATION IN TERMS OF THE SANCTION AND THAT IS ALL WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THERE, BUT IT ? DEFENSIBLE.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT MITIGATION , DON'T WE TALK ABOUT MITIGATING FACTORS THAT HAD SOME KIND OF A RELATIONSHIP TO THE ACT INVOLVED OR OTHER COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES THAT KIND OF, IN FACT, DO MITIGATE THE EGREGIOUSNESS OF THE CON DUCT?

I THINK THAT , WHEN ONE LOOKS A T THESE CASES , QUITE HONESTLY, SOME OF THESE CASES IN WHICH THERE IS NOTHING MITIGA TING AT ALL , FALSE STATEMENTS, FA LSE REPRESENTATIONS, MISSTATEMENTS TO THE COURT , L YING , FORGE RY , THINGS LI KETHAT, AND YOU SEE THAT BUILT INTO THE COUR T'S DE CISION IS SOME SENSE OF TEMPERING WHAT THE PENALTY IS, AND THAT IS ALL I AM HERE TALKING ABOUT , IS WHAT KIND OF PENALTY.

LET ME ASK YOU THIS , DO YOU MAIN TAIN THAT THERE IS A REAL DIFFERENCE OR ARE YOU ADVOCATING THE DIFFERENCE , IF YOU A S SUME THAT THE SANCTION WOULD B E GIN FROM THE DATE OF THE O F FENSE O F PRACTICING WITHOUT A LI CENSE , AND THAT IT WOULD BE A , IF IT WERE , DISBAR MENT NUN PRO TUNCT, THEN IT WOULD EFFECTIVELY BE THREE ADDITIONAL YEARS BEFORE YOU COULD APPLY.IF IT WERE A THR EE-YEAR SUSPENSION, IT WOULD BE THE SAME LENGTH OF TIME BEFOREYOU COULD REAPPLY , BUT UNDER THOSE FACTS , IS THERE A DISTINCTION THAT YOU DRAW BETWEEN A DISBARMENT AND AN EXTENSION OF THE SUSPENSION? FOR THAT PERIOD OF TIME .

YES. THE EXTENS ION OF THE SUSPENSION WOULD BE A LESSER SANCTION, ALLO WING HIM TO REAPPLY, SHOWING REHABILITATION. THE DISBARMENT WOULD PUT HIM OUT.HE WOULD HAVE TO REAP PLY , TAKE THE BAR EXAMINATION ALLO VER AGAIN, S O THE EXTENSION

TAKING THE BAR. I MEAN, YOU WOULD HAVE TO PROVE REHABILITATION E ITHER WAY.

YES, YOU WOULD , AND INDEED QUITE HONESTLY, I THINK HERE THAT THE REHABILITATION IF WE EVER GET TO THAT POINT, WOULD INCLUDE SUPERVISION BY A LICENSED MEMBER OF THEFLORIDA BAR FOR A PERIOD OF TIME.

COUL D YOU CLA RIFY SOMETHING. TWO THINGS IN THE FACTS. FIRST OF ALL , I REALIZE THAT THE ORIG INAL SUSPENSION IS NOT IN FRONT OF US, BUT IN TERMS OF T RYING TO UNDERSTAND THE , WHETHER THIS IS EGREGIOUS OR WHAT LEVEL IT IS , WHAT WAS THE BASIS FOR THE TWO-YEAR SUSPENSION?

HE SOUGHT INDIGENCY S TATUS UNDER THE STATUTES FOR CLIENTS WHO ARE NOT IN DIJENT. HE ACCEPTED INDIGENT. HE ACCE PTED MO NIES FROM CLIENTS WHO WERE NOT IND IGENT AND SOUGHT INDIGENT STATUS.

DEMAK E FALSE REPRESENTATION TO SAY THECOURT?

YES. NEGLECT OF CLIE NTS' MATTERS. VIOLATIONS OF TRUST ACCOUNTS.

HO W DID HE JUST GET A TWO-YEAR SUSPENSION FORTHAT?

I THINK AT THAT POINT , ONE OF THE MITIGATING FACTORS WAS HIS DISABILITY.

WAS IT AN APPROVED ORDER OR WAS IT SOMETHING THAT WENT BEFORE A REFE REE?

IT WAS CON SENTED TO AND HE CONSENTED. I MEAN , THROUGHOUT THESE PROCEEDINGS.

SO THIS COURT , B ASED ON WHAT YOU ARE JUST TELLING ME , MIGHT HAVE ACTUALLY IM POSED DISBARMENT FOR JUST THOSEKINDS OF THINGS.

PERHAPS. I MEAN, IT NEVER GO T TO THAT.

SO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AS I F THIS TWO- YEAR SUSPENSION, SO THESE ARE V ERY SUBSTANTIAL VIOLATIONS, AND THEN , WAS THERE , BEFORE THESE INSTAN CES OF PRACTICING LAW , WAS THERE SOMETHING ELSEWHERE THERE WAS AN OTHER V IOLATION OF, WHERE HE, OF HIS TERMS OF SUSPENSION, WHERE HE WASAGAIN PRACTICING LAW?

YES, JUSTICE PARIENTE.

LET'S HEAR THAT.

BEFORE THE SUSPENSION CAME INTO E FFECT, H E ACC EPTED CLIENTS WHOSE CASESHE COULD NOT COMPLETE BEFORE THE SUSPENSION BEGAN , AND SO AN ADDITIONAL TWO-YEAR SUSPENSION TO RUN CONCURRENT WITH THE ORIGINAL TWO YEARS .

THAT WAS SORT OF ANOTHER GENRE GENEROUS PART D WE DPREEING WITH THAT, THE TWO YEARS? PAR T. DID WE AG REE WITH THAT , THE TWO YEARS?

YES, YOU DID.

REALLY , IF WE ARE GOINGTO BE FAIR TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND TO THE BAR AND TO SOCIETY , WE NE ED TO LOOK AT AND SHOULD LOOK AT THE FACT THAT THESE WERE SUBSTANTIAL VIOLATIONS. HE, THEN , VI OLATED THESPIRIT OF THE COURT'S ORDER BY CONTINUING TO ACCEPT CLIENTS, AND THEN A T THE END WHILE STILL UNDER SUSPENSION, ACTUALLY, THEN , WAS PRACTICING LAW.

O N THOSE TWO OCCASIONS, YES.IT IS NOT A PRETTY PICTURE , AND THE ONLY ISSUE THAT I AM RAISING IS WHAT THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION S HOULD BE. AND OUR PO SITION SI MPLY IS , IF IT IS FIVE YEARS' DISBARMENT, IT S HOULD BE NUN PRO T UNCT , WE THINK , UNTIL JULY 2000. I HAVE HEARD COMMENTS FROM THE COURT NUN PRO TUNCT TO THE TIME THAT HE COMMITTED THESE ACTS OR A THRE E-YEAR SUSPENSION, BUT I THINK THAT REHABILITATION IN THAT SITUATION WOULD RE QUIRE SUPERVISION OF HIM. I THINK PERMANENT D ISBARMENT WENT TOO FA R. THI S IS NOT A PERM ANENT DISBAR MENT CASE AND MR. B ARON SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RE DEEM HIMSELF AS A LAWYER AND TO BE ABLE TO PRACTICE LAW ONE DAY , AGAIN IN FLORIDA , UPON THE APPROPRIATE SHOWING.

CHIEF JUSTICE: MR . TURNER.

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. ERIC TU RNER FOR THE FLORIDABAR.

IS IT THE BAR'S POSITION THAT PERMANENT DISBARMENT IS APPROPRIATE?

YES, YOUR HONOR, IT ISTHE BAR'S POSITION THAT PERMANENT DISBARMENT IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE.

WH Y?

WE BE LIEVE HE PNER IS INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE AS JUSTICE PARIENTE JUST POINTED OUT , WHAT MR. BARON 'S HISTORY IN , BEFORE THIS COURT GEORGIANS IN 19 88 FOR PUBLIC REPRI MAND FOR MAKING MISREPRESENTATION TO SAY THEBAR.THE NE XT DISCIPLINE IS

WHAT WERE THOSE MISREPRESENTATIONS?

HE MADE MISREPRESENTATIONS REGARDINGTHE SETT LEMENT OF A LAW SUIT , WHEN THE BAR WAS INVESTIGATING A MATTER. HE INDI CATED T O THE BAR THAT THE MATTER BETWEEN TWO CLIENTS , MR. BARON WASREPRESENT AGO CLIENT IN A DISSOLUTION MATTER. THERE WAS A DISPUTE O VER THE HOUSE. HE REP RESENT REPRESENTING A CLIENT IN A DISSOLUTION M ATTER . THERE WAS A DISPUTE OVER THE HOUSE. AND HE SENT LETTERS THAT WERE CONTRARY , WHICH THE BAR IN THIS INVESTIGATION FOUND, AND THOSE LETTERS PROVED THAT MR. BARON WAS ATTEMPTING TO FORCE THE OTHER PARTY T O WITHDRAW THE BAR COMPLAINT , WHILE AT THE SAME TIME TELLING THE BAR THE COMPLA INT HAD ALREADY BEEN WITHDRAWN. IN THE JUNE 2000 CASE , MR. BARON WAS SUSPENDED FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS. IT WAS A CONSENT AGREEMENTWITH THE BAR. THE BAR WAS WAS GENEROUS TO MR. BARON ,. HE MADE 13 PETITIONS TO THECOURT IN BROWARD COUNTY , W HERE IN HE MADE FALSE REPRESENTATIONS TO THE COURT THAT INDIVI DUALS WERE PROPERLY INDIGENT , AND THEY RECEIVED SERVICES OF THE SHERIFF, FI LING F EES , ET CETERA, THAT THEY SHOULD NOT H AVE BEEN ABLE TO RECEIVE.

NOW, HOW I N TERMS OF THIS COMING BEFORE U S AND JUDGING THAT, BECAUSE, TO ME AS I HEARD THAT PART , THAT IS SOMETHING THAT , IN IT SELF , COULD HAVE BEEN GROUNDS FOR DISBARMENT.

YES.

HOW DO WE , IS THAT IN OUR RECORD

YES, YOUR HONOR.

HOW DO WE TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION?BECAUSE THE REFEREE DIDN'T, IT SORT OF WAS THE FACT HE WAS UNDER SUSPENSION WASJUST A GIVEN, WITH OUT LOOKING AT WHAT THE UNDERLYING BASIS FOR THE SUSPENSION WAS.

ACTUALLY , YOUR HONOR, IN THE REFEREE'S REPORT, AS IN ALL REFEREE'S REPO RT, THE REFEREE IS REQUIRED TO CONSIDER THE PR IOR DISCIPLINE OF THE RESPONDENT . YOU WILL SEE IN THE REFEREE 'S REPORT BEGINNING AT PA GE 1 1RX THE REFEREE DETAILS THE PRIOR DISCIPLINARY RECORD OF MR. BARON AND HAS INCLUDED ALL OF THE ORDERS WHERE IN MR. BARON WAS SUSPENDED, THE L AST SUSPENSION BEING A CONCURRENT SUSPENSION WITH A TWO-YEAR SUSPENSION BECA USE THE BAR LEAR NED THAT BARON HAD TAKEN ON CLIENTS.

I KNOW HE DETAILED IT , BUT AS FAR AS THE ACTUAL FACTS THAT YOU ARE TELLING US MAKE UP THE TWO-YEAR SUSPENSION, THE 13 IN STANCES OF MAKING MISREPRESENTATIONS BEFORE JUDGES IN B ROWARD COUNTY. WHERE IS THAT IN THE RECORD?

YES, YOUR HONOR, THIS PARTICULAR JUDGE , JUDGE COHEN, WAS THE SAME JUDGE WHO HEARD THE PRIOR CASES OF MR. BARON.

FOR US, IF WE WERE TO WRITE AN OP INION , WHERE WOULD WE HAVE THE BASIS THAT THERE WERE THESE 13 INSTANCES?

IN EACH OF OUR CASES , WE SUBMIT TO THE REFEREE AN AFFIDAVIT WHICH DETAILS

IS THAT IN OUR RECORD NOW?

YES, YOUR HONOR. IT IS PART OF THE RECORD THAT WAS BEFORE THE REFEREE. WE PRESENT TO THE REFEREE , THE ACTUAL ORDER IN THE REFEREE'S REPORT, SO THE REFEREE MAY REFER BACK TO THEM AGAIN. THESE ARE MATTERS THAT ARE ALL REPORTED IN THE SOUTHERN REPORTER AS WELL , SO THAT I F THE JUDGE DID NOT ACTUALLY RECEIVE THESE PARTIC ULAR REPORTS , THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE FOR ANY MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY TO TAKE A LO OK AT THEM AGAIN.

WHAT IS A , THE ST ANDARD FOR PERMANENT DISBARMENT , AS OPPOSED TO DISBARMENT ? I K NOW THE R ULE SIMPLY SAYS THAT PERMANENT DISBAR MENT SHALL PRE CLUDE READMISSION.

YES, YOUR HONOR.

WE STRUGGLE AL L THE TIME , OFTEN , W ITH THIS CONC EPT OF PERMANENT DISBARMENT , A ND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THAT STANDARD IS.

IN OUR STA TE, YOUR HONOR , WE A MENDED THE R U LES , I BELIEVE IN 1997 , T O ALLOW PERMANENT DISBARMENT. THE FLORIDA STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS WERE NOT ADMITTED AT THESAME TIME . COUNSEL FOR MR. BARON POINTED OUT THAT IT DOESN'T SUGGEST PERMANENT DISBARMENT BUT ONLY DISBARMENT. WHAT THE BAR BELIEVES IS THAT, IN A CASE LIKE THIS WHERE YOU HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL WHO DEMONSTRATES TIME ANDTIME AGAIN, THAT HE WILL NOT FOLLOW THE RULES. HE WILL NOT CON DUCT HIMSELF AS AN ETHI CAL ATTORNEY , WE NEED TO HAVE A ME THOD WHERE THAT INDIVI DUAL DOES NOT GET ANOTHER OPPORTUN ITY TO COME BACK T O THE COURT AND SAY I WOULD LI KE TO BE ADMITTED.WE HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT THE ACTUAL DISCIPLINE WAS THAT WAS IM POSED AGAINST MR. BARON, AND WHAT IS THE LIKELIHOOD THAT MR. BARON WILL EVER BE ABLE TO PRESENTTO THE COURT, A SITUATION, A PICTURE WHERE HE WOULD BE THE TYPE OF PER SON WHO WOULD BE ACCEPT ABLE.

BUT IN AN SWER TO JUSTICE WELLS'S QUESTION, THE STANDARDS DON'T SPEAK TO IT. THIS COURT HAS , AS OF YET, HAS NOT ARTICULATED A STANDARD, HAVE WE?

THAT'S CORRECT , YOURHONOR.THE COURT HASN'T.

AND FROM THE OTHER CASES WHERE, THE V ERY FEW CASESWHERE THERE HAS BEEN PERMANENT DISBARMENT , HASN 'TTHAT BEEN FOR INDIVIDUALSTHAT ARE ALREADY DISBAR RED? IN OTHER WO RDS THEY ARE DISBARRED , AND THEY PRA CTICE LAW, SO THERE IS ALMOST,OTHER THAN JAILING THEM OR , FOR CONTEM PT THERE, IS NOT M UCH LE FT E LS E TO DO.

YES, YOUR HONOR. THE BAR HAS SOUGH T PERMANENT DISBARMENT, TYPICALLY IN ACASE WHERE WE HAVE INDIVIDUALS WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN DISBARRED ALREADY, OR WE HAVE CAUGHT INDIVIDUALSWHO HAVE BEEN PRAC TICING AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED, AND WE AS K IN OURPETITION, FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR PERMANENT DISBARMENT.

BUT HAVE WE PERMANENT LY DISBARRED ANYBODY THAT , ATTHE TIME OF THEIR PRACTICING IMPROPERLY, WAS SUSPENDED AS OPPOSED TO DISBARRED?

YES. THE COURT HAS. HOWEVER, NO NE OF THOSE CASES HAVE COME UP ON APPEA L , SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY OPINIONS. THERE HAVE BEEN CASES THAT INDIVIDUALS HAVE NOT CONTESTED , THROUGH THE COURT , THROUGH A FULL HEAR ING. S O WE DON 'T HAVE ANY JURISPRUDENCE OUT THERE THAT WOULD SU GGEST THAT WE MAYLOOK BACK AND SAY THESE ARE REASONS WH Y, I N ONE CASE VERSUS ANOTHER.

BUT IN PUBLISHED OPINIONS , WHERE WE DO HAVE A RECORD , C ASES OF , REALLY , M UCH M ORE EGREGIOUS COND UCT , WHERE WE HAVE SI MPLY IMPOSED THE ORDINARY FIVE -YEAR DISBAR MENT FOR ST EALING FROM CLIENTS AND FOR MUCH MORE SE RIOUS CON DUCT , GIVEN YOU KNOW, THE RECORD O F THE LAWYER IN T HIS PARTICULAR CASE? SO I AM Q UITE CONCERNED THAT IT WOULD BE VERY DIFF ICULT , IF WE IMPO SED A PERMANENT DISBARMENT IN THIS CASE, THAT IT WOULD APPEAR THAT W E REALLY WOULD B E PU TTING PERMANENT DISBARMENT OUT THERE FOR VIRTUALLY ANY DISBARMENT CASE, IF WE APPROVED IT IN THIS CASE .

WELL , I BELIEVE , YOUR HON OR

SURELY YOU WOULD AGREE THAT SOME OF THE VERY EGREGIOUS CASES THAT WE HAVE HAD OF JUST IN EX CUSE ABLE GRAND LARCENY OR THEFT , STEALING FROM A CLIENT, WHERE THOSE ATTORNEYS HAVE ORDINARILY RECEIVED, QUOTE , THE FIVE -YEAR DISBARMENTS , AND THAT THOSE ARE MUCH MORE , EVEN TAKING THE WHOLE RECORD OF THIS DEFENDANT , ACCEPTINGIT, THAT THOSE CASES ARE MUCH MORE EGREGIOUS, ARE THEY NOT?

JUSTICE ANS TEAD , I WOULD AGREE THEY ARE MORE EGREGIOUS. HOWEVER, IN THOSE CASES , WEHAVE IN STANCES WHEREINDIVIDUALS ARE CONVICT AFTERWARD FELONY. AS I AM A WARE CONV ICTED OF A FELONY. AS I AM AW AY AS I AM AWARE , AN INDIVIDUAL WHO AS I AM AWARE , AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF A FELONY MAY NOT APPLY TO BECOME A LAWYER, HE RE IN FLORIDA, SO THAT DISBARMENT IS EQUAL TO DISBARMENT. IN HEPNER , HEPNER WAS FACING FELONY CHARGES , AND THAT IS WHY I BELIEVE IT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE CASE THAT WE HAVE HERE TO DAY.

IF WE START WITH REPRIMANDS AND WE GO TO TEN , THI RTY , 90 -DAY SUSPENSIONS , 91-DAY SUSPENSIONS THROUGH THE NUMBER OF YEARS SUSPENSION, UNTIL WE GET TO DISBARMENT, SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT, IN THE WHOLE SCHEME OF THINGS , THAT IF YOU ARE G OING TO DO PROGRESSIVE LY MORE HA RSH DISCIP LINE , THAT A DISBAR MENT, REA LLY, WOULD COME BEFORE A PERMANENT DISBAR MENT , AND THAT MAYBE A PERMANENT DISBARMENT SHOULD BE RESE RVED FOR THOSE CASES WHERE A LAWYER HAS, IN FACT , BEEN DISBARRED OR RESIGNED , WHICH WE HAVE SAID IS TANTAMOUNT TO DISBARMENT , BEFORE WE ACTUALLY IMPOSE A PERMANENT DISBARMENT?

JUSTICE QUINCE, I BELIEVE IN THIS CASE , WE HAVE EVIDENCE THAT MR . BARON HAS LIED TO BOTH THE BAR AND THE COURT ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS.THOSE INSTANCES WOULD HAVE BEEN SUFF ICIENT TO OBTAIN A DISBARMENT, BUT FOR THE FACT THAT THE BAR SHO WED SOME CONSIDERATION TO MR. BARON AND AGREED TO A LE SSER SANCTION.

BUT YOU SEE WHAT JUSTICE QUINCE IS SAYING , WHAT WE ARE SO RT OF LOOKING AT HERE,THAT THERE IS SOME CONCEPT OF PROPORTIONAL ITY IN T HIS , AND IF THIS ENDS UP BE ING THE CASE FOR PERMANENT DISBARMENT , DOESN'T IT, REALLY, PUT US IN ASITUATION THAT, ALL OF A SUDDEN DISBARMENT CASES, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, ARE , WE ARE GOING TO BE, REALLY , SAYING THAT A LOT MORE OF THESE CASES WHERE THERE IS DISBARMENT, NEEDS TO BE A PERMANENT DISBARMENT , AND WHY , FROM THE BAR'S POINT OF V IEW , IF THE COURT AGREES THAT DISBARMENT IS APPROPRIATE , WOULD YOU MAKE AN ARGUMENT AS TO WHY , WHETHER IT SHOULD BE FROM THE DATE OF THIS OPINION OR , VERSUS A S MR . R OGOW WAS SAYING FROM THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL SUSPENSION , OR, THEN, WHY WOULDN'T IT BE FROM THE TIME THAT HE ACTUALLY IMPROPERLY MADE THESE ACTIONS? SO IF WE CAN MAYBE GET , JUST TO AS SUME WE SAY DISBARMENT IN THIS CASE IS APPROPRIATE , WHEN SHOULD IT RUN FROM?

I BELIEVE THAT , IN THIS CASE , DISBARMENT SHOULD RUN FROM THE COURT ORDER. WHAT WE HAD IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE BELOW WAS CONCURRENT SUSPENSIONS , AND MR. BARON SUBMITTED APETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT , W HICH WAS DENIED, BASED O N PARTLY IN FACT , THAT HE HAD LIED REGARDING RESTITUTION THAT HE HAD MADE , AND IN OTHER PARTS, THAT HE HAD F AILED TO SUBMIT INFORMATIONTO THE COURT, IT TO ALLOW THE COURT TO FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT HIS CURRENT SITUATION WAS AT THAT TIME , IN THAT HE HAD AN OUTSTANDING JUDGMENT IN EXCESS OF $54,000 AND A SECOND CIVIL LAWSUIT THAT WAS PE NDING AGAINST HIM. IN THIS CASE , WE BELIEVE THAT ANY DISCIPLINE IMPOSED AGAINST MR. BARON , SHOULD BEGIN AT THE TIME THAT THE ORDER BEGA N. MR. BARON SHOULD NOT BENEFIT FROM THE FACT THAT HE IS CURRENTLY ON SUSPENSION, TO RECEIVE A SHORTER DISBAR MENT PERIOD OF TIME .

THE ORDER , REFERE E'S ORDER OR OUR ORDER? ANOTHER SUPREME COURT'S ORDER, YOUR HONOR.

WHY SHOULD IT , IF H E APP EALS IT, WHY SHOULD HE BE IN A WO RSE SITUATION THAN IF HE HAD JUST AGREED AT THE TIME?

IN MAJORITY OF THE ORDERS THAT COME BEFORE THIS , FROM THE COURT IN MATTERS INVOLVING THE FLORIDA BAR, THE ORDER OF THE COURT BEGINS THE DISCIPLI NE.

WE DON'T REALLY , YOU KNOW , IN TERMS OF W E DON'T HAVE ORAL ARGUMENT IN A LOT OF THESE CASES , AND I GUESS IAM ASKING YOU DOESN'T THAT PENALIZE SOMEBODY WHO HAS APPEALED A CASE , TO AT L E AST N OT, TO AT LEAST LET IT RUNFROM THE DATE THE REFEREE'SREPORT, S INCE HE IS ALREADY UNDER SUSPENSION , AS OP POSED TO, SAY, I F WE T AKE SIX MONTHS TO WRITE AN OPINION , WHY SHOULD IT GO FROM THAT DATE?

YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVETHAT IT I S UNFAIR TO THE BAR AND TO THE PU BLIC , TO ALLOW MR. BARON'S DISBARMENT , TO BEGIN AT THE OPINION DA TE

IS N'T THAT , WHA T I AM SAYING , DOESN'T THAT BECOME AN ARBITRARY DATE, AND DOESN'T THAT PENALIZE SOMEBODY THAT IS G OING TO TRY TO APPE AL THE REFEREE'SORDER?

I DON'T BELIEVE IT PENALIZES SOME ONE LI KE MR. BARON BECAUSE HE WAS SUSPENDED AS YOUR HONORPOINTED OUT , AND DURING THE TIME THAT HE WAS SUSPENDED AS CURREN TLY NOW , MR. BARON COULD ASK FOR ANOTHER OPINION , AND HE WAS PRECLUDED BY A PRIOR PETITION WHERE IT WAS DENIED FOR AT LEAST ONE YEAR , SO MR. BARON BY EFFECT OF SUBMITINGTHAT PE TITION, WAS PRECLUDED FROM ANY REINSTATEMENT , BUT ANY OT HER INDIVIDUAL COULD SUBMIT A PETITION , IF , IN FACT, THEY WERE ON SUSPENSION FOR REINSTATEMENT, IF THEY HAD AND WERE ABLE TO SHOW THE PROPER GROUNDS THAT THEY WERE AVAILABLE FOR REINSTATEMENT.

WHEN COUL D HE HAVE RUN , WHEN COULD HE HAVE PETITIONED AGAIN FOR REINSTATEMENT, BUT FOR THIS, THESE NEW CHARGES?

MR. BARRON 'S REINSTATEMENT WAS DENIED , YOUR HONOR , BY ORDER OF THESUPREME COURT ON JUNE 19 , 2003, SO HE WOULD BE PRE CLUDE UP UN TIL JUNE OF 2 004 , BECAUSE TO START A NEW PETITION AND BEGIN TO BECOME REINSTATED, IF HE CHOSE TO DO SO, H E NE EDED OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO WAS BEFORE THE COURT ON THIS T YPE OF PROCEEDING, LIKEWISE COULD COME BEFORE THE COURT AND ATTEMPT TO OB TAIN THEIR STATUS TO RE TURN T O PRACTICE.

WAS THIS MISCONDUCT CONSIDERED IN HIS APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT?

THE CONDUCT OF THE PETITION? NO, YOUR HONOR , IT WAS NOT. THE PETITION WAS DENIED ON OTHER SEPARATE GROUNDS .

THE ONLY AS PECT , I BELIEVE , THAT YOU HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO , I S YOUR OPPOSITION 'S CH ARGE AND CHALLENGE, THAT BOTH THE BAR AND THE REFEREE HAVE OVERLOOKED SUBSTANTIAL MITIGATION, A ND THAT THAT SHOULD PLAY A PART IN WHAT WE DO IN CONNECTION WITH THIS CASE , AT LEAST BE A FACTOR. WHA T IS THE, SHARE WITH US THE BAR'S POSITION. WHAT DO WE DO AS A BAR, WITH REGARD TO THESE KINDS OF ISSUES, AND DOES IT HAVE AROLE IN THIS CASE, AND IF S O , WHAT IS IT, AND I F NOT , WHY NOT?

YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE THAT, IN THIS CASE , THIS COURT SHOULD CONSIDER WHAT IS BEFORE IT. MR. BARON HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT A RECOMMENDED REFEREE REPORT , BEFORE THE REFEREE ENTERED THE REPORT , THAT IS IN THE RECORD TODAY , MR. BARON CHOSE NOT TO. IN OTHER CASES , THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID THE SAME . OUR BRIEF, WE CITED

HE LP ME OVER THE PROCEDURAL DEFAULT. LET'S TA LK CON TENT .

O KAY .

WHAT IS IN THE RECORD? CONTENT. WHAT IS THE POSITION OF THEBAR. ASSUME MY QUESTION , LET'S ASS UME THAT HE DID PRE SENT IT AND PRESERVED T.

HAD MR. BARON PRESENT A DD RECOMMENDED REPORT IN REGARDS TO MITI GATION , THE REFEREE WOULD BE ABLE TO T AKE A LOOK AT THOSE THIN GS. WHAT COUNSEL HAS SUGGESTED , IS THAT THE REFEREE SHOULD CONSIDER THE MITIGATION THAT HE CONS IDERED BEFORE . THAT IS NOT APPROPRIATE , BECAUSE PRIOR MITIGATION I N OTHER CASES , FI RST , DEALT WITH THE FACT THAT MR. BARON HAD NOT BEEN DISCIPLINEDBEFORE, WH ICH WOULDN'T BE APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE ANYMORE. IN OTHER CASES, THE REFEREE WAS ABLE TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT MR. BARON BROUGHT FORWARD TO THE COURT , BUT, IN FACT , YOU WILL SEE THAT IN THE CASE INVOLVING THE TWO-YEAR SUSPENSION , THE REFEREE CONSIDERED THAT HE WAS IN EXPERIENCED IN PRACTICE AND THAT HE WAS ADMITTED I N 1992 , AND THIS CASE OCCURS IN THE YEAR 2 003, SO IT IS BEFORE THE REFEREE IN 2004. THAT MITIGATION IS NO LO NGER APPLICABLE NOW, BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN AD MITED FOR AT LEAST TEN YEARS. THE OTHER THAT THE REFEREE TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION WERE THE FACT THAT MR. BARON HAD A PHYSICAL DISABILITY OR IMPAIRMENT, AND THE FACT THAT MR. BARON WAS SHOWING REMORSE.IN THIS CASE, THE RECORD SHOWS MR. BARON SUBMITTED TO THE COURT , A RESPONSE THAT SAYS, YES , I DID WHAT IT IS THAT WAS ALLEGED . MR. BARON HAS NOT PRESENTEDANYTHING WHATSO EVER, T O SUGGEST THAT HE WAS REMORSEFUL FOR HIS COND UCT, IN THAT HE INTENTIONALLY SET OUT TO VIO LATE THE COURT ORDER .

THERE WAS A HE ARING IN THI S CASE, RIGHT?

YOUR HONOR , THE RE WAS A HEARING ON THE MOTION FORSUMMARY JUDGMENT FI LED BY THE FLORIDA BAR. MR. BARON APPE ARED.

AT THAT HEARING , WAS THERE ANY A T TEMPT TO SHOW MITIGATION ?

YOUR HONOR , MR. BARON DID NOT PRESENT ANYTHING IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION FORSUMMARY JUDGMENT , AND

BUT WAS THERE AN APPLICATION , EITHER BEFORE OR AF TER THE ENTRY OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT , TO SHOW MITIGATION TO THE COURT?

NO , YOUR HONOR.

TO THE REFEREE.

NOT ONLY MR. BARON DID ATANY PO INT IN TIME .

DID THAT RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTION, JUSTICE LEWIS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WITH OUR TIME , WITH OUR Q UESTIONS , YOU HAVE MORE THAN USED UP YOUR TIME. THANK YOU . MR . ROGOW.

WITH RE GARD TO PERMANENT DISBARMENT IN THE F. LEE BAILEY CASE , THE REFEREE HAD RECOMMENDED PERMANENT DISBARMENT , AND THE COURT ONLY EN TERED REGULAR DISBARMENT, FIVE YEARS. THAT INV OLVED THEFT OF $6 MILLION AND OTHER MISCONDUCT .

CAN I AS K YOU TO RESP OND ON THE LAST QUESTIONING, REGARDING THE MITIGATING EVIDENCE. THIS WAS A MOTION FORSUMMARY JUDGMENT . WAS THERE ANY C L AIM THAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE ENT ERED, THAT THERE WERE GENUINE IS SUES OF MATERIAL FACTOR ANY ARGUMENT TO THE REFEREE THAT, E VEN IF HE FINDS SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON GUILT, THAT YOU HAVE THEOPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE ON MITIGATION FOR DISCIPLINARY REASONS?

NOT A S TO THE LA TTER MATTER WITH REGARD TO MITIGATION, BUT THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO ESTABLISH A DISPUTED ISSUE OF FACT BUTTHERE WAS NO DISPUTED ISSUE OF FACT . BY HIS RESPONSE , HE CONCEDED THAT THERE WAS A VI OLATION, SO SUMMARY JUDGMENT WASAPPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE.

WHAT AT ENT WAS THERE MADE TO GET MITIGATING EV IDENCE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT , REFEREE?

NOTHING AT THAT TIME, BUT, OF COURSE , THIS WAS A REFEREE THAT HAD ALREADY SEEN MR. BARON AND HAD ALREADY FOUND THEIR TO BE MITIGATION, AND MR. BARON WAS THERE IN THE SAME STATUS THAT HE HAD BEEN THERE BEFORE, SO IT WAS NOTSOMETHING THAT MR. BARON SAID BUT IT WAS APP ARENT THAT MR. BARON WAS IN THE SAME DISA BLED STATE AS HE HAD BEEN BEFORE.

BUT THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT AFTER SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED.

NOT AF TER SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

TO GO BACK TO THE REFEREE AND SAY WAIT A MINUTE. WE WANT AT LEAST AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENTEVIDENCE OF MITIGATION .

NO. MR. BARON REPRESENTED HIMSELF AND REPRES ENTED HIMSELF THROUGHO UT ALL OF THESE PROCEEDING S, UNFORTUNATELY.

LET ME ASK YOU , THE N THERE , IS A OBVIOUSDISABILITY. H OW, IN RESPONSE TO JUSTICE CANTERO 'S EARLIER QUESTIONS , HOW SHOULD WE CONSIDER THE FACT OF HIS DISABILITY, IN TERMS OF THE AC TIONS THAT HE TOOK IN PRACTICING LAW WHILE SUSPENDED? I DON'T SEE ANY RELATIONSHIP , I GUES S, IS WHAT

IT IS ALREADY PART OF THE RECORD THAT HE IS DISABLED, B UT I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH JUSTICE LEWIS THAT IT DOES NOT EXCUSE THE CONDUCT THAT IS HERE.

HOW DOES IT MITIGATE THEVIOLATION?

IT MITIGATES I T ONLY TOTHE EX TENT THAT LIFE IS NOT E ASY , AND HE STRUGGLES, ANDIN TERMS OF THE STRUGGLE THAT WE ARE ASKING TO BE ABLE TO PUT BEHIND HIM , IS THAT HE BE AB LE TO APPLYONCE AGAIN TO THE BAR AND TO THIS COURT, H AS NOT THAT I S THE ONLY REAL RELEVANCE OF. THAT THE ONLY CASE IN WHI CHTHE COURT THAT I HAVE FOUND , HAS ENTERED PERMANENT DISBARMENT, IS THE WINTER CASE, WHERE THERE WERE 21 ACTS OF CONTEMPT AFTER WINTER HAD RESIGNED F RO M PRACTICE OF LAW AND THAT HE CONTINUED TO PRA CTICE LAW.

CHIEF JUSTICE: I APPRECIATE YOUR CA NDOR. I KNOW THAT MR. BARON IS IN THE COURTROOM . TO ME , THIS IS A SITUATIONWHERE, FROM ALMOST THE TIME THAT H E BECA ME A LAWYER , HE N EVER FOLL OWED THE O ATH . SEEMED TO BLATANTLY DISREGARD THAT OA TH, AND IDON'T KNOW WHETHER THIS COURT WILL O R WIL L NOT GIVE HIM A CH ANCE T O REAPPLY. HE WILL PROBABLY HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL PERIOD OF TIMETO THINK AB OUT IT AND TO THINK ABOUT WH Y HE WANTED TO BE A LAWYER , TO BEGIN WITH , AND WHAT THE PRAC TICE OF LAW M EANS IN THIS STATE . AND I THANK FOR YOU YOUR REPRESENTATION OF HIM TO DAY.

THANK YOU.

CHIEF JUSTICE: WE ARE IN REC ESS FOR 1 5 MINUTES.

MARSHAL: PLEASE RISE.