In re: Amendments to the Florida Small Claims Rules

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. Leonard William Krouner

SC04-819

SO WE'LL MOVE TO OUR NEXT CASE,WHICH IS THE FLORIDA BAR, VERSUSKROUNER.
I'M LEONARD KROUNER, AND IAPPEAR HERE TODAY TO ASK THISCOURT TO IMPOSE SANCTIONSCONSISTENT WITH THE FLORIDASTANDARD FOR IMPOSING LAWYERDISCIPLINE, SECTION 9.22 AND9.32 AS APPLIED TO THE EVIDENCEDEDUCED IN TWO HEARINGS BEFOREREFEREE REYNOLDS.AND CONSISTENT WITH SEVEN OF THEEIGHT CASES MENTIONED IN THEAPPELLANT'S INITIAL BRIEF, PAWJS31 AND 34, IN WHICH THIS COURTHAS CONSIDERED LESS SUB STANGSMITIGATING FACTORS --
MR. KROUNER, WE'RE FULL MYFAMILIAR WITH THE ARGUMENT YOUPROJECTED IN THE BRIEFS AND THECIRCUMSTANCES.WOULD YOU ADDRESS MY INITIALCONCERN THAT THERE IS ASTATEMENT UNDER OATH THAT YOUGAVE IN THE NEW YORK PROCEEDING,IN THE CRUMBNAL PROSECUTION,WHERE YOU ESSENTIALLY STATEDTHAT YOU WERE GIVEN UP AS PARTOF THE PLEA AGREEMENT, YOURLICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW IN THREESTATES, THAT YOU WERE THENLICENSED IN, AND THAT THAT WASAN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION TOTHE PLEA AGREEMENT THAT YOU HAD.I HAVE IN FRONT OF ME A PATIENTQUOTE FROM THAT, AND -- APARTIAL QUOTE FROM THAT ANDAPPARENTLY YOU MADE THESTATEMENT, THREE PROFESSIONALLICENSES WHICH ARE PRECIOUS TOME IN WHICH I WORK TO MAINTAININ MY STANDING THROUGHOUT MYENTIRE ADULT LIFE ARE BEINGSACRIFICED AND TOGETHER WITHTHOSE LICENSES, GOES THE ESSENCEOF MY BEING AND LIFE'S BLOOD OFMY WORK.AND YOU MADE ADDITIONALSTATEMENTS INDICATING THAT YOUWERE GIVING UP THOSE LICENSES ASPART OF THIS PLEA AGREEMENT.I AM DISTRESSED, NON-PLUSSED ORSHOCKED THAT YOU WOULD NOWAPPROACH THIS COURT FROM THESTANDPOINT, AS IF THIS WAS A DENOVO PROCEEDING IN THE FLORIDADISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, AS OPPOSEDTO YOU SIMPLY NOW LIVING UP TOWHAT YOU STATED IN THOSE NEWYORK PROCEEDINGS.CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN TO MEYOUR STATEMENT IN NEW YORK ANDHOW THAT SQUARES WITH THEPOSITION THAT YOU'RE TAKINGTODAY?
YES, YOUR HONOR.I APPRECIATE THAT CONCERN.THE STATEMENT THAT I MADE IN NEWYORK WAS NOT INTENDED TO BEBINDING UPON COURTS OUTSIDE OFNEW YORK.AND THE WORDS I USED WERESURRENDER AND SACRIFICE.AND IN NO CASE THAT I FOUND INTHIS COURT, THE COURT LOOKED TOWORDS THAT WERE MADE IN A PLEANEGOTIATION IN ANOTHER STATE ANDA!!!!IN A NON-DISCIPLINARYPROCEEDING, TO DETERMINE WHATTHE SANCTION WOULD BE IN THESTATE OF FLORIDA.
I FIND THAT MOST DISTRESSING,ESPECIALLY COMING OUT OF THEMOUTH OF A SO-CALLED OFFICER OFTHE COURT.THAT YOU NOW WOULD TAKE A VOWAND A PLEDGE THAT YOU MADE IN ACOURT PROCEEDING, AND TELL USTHAT THAT HAS NO EFFECT NOW ONWHAT IS GOING ON HERE INFLORIDA, AND THAT YOU BELIEVETHAT THERE SHOULD NOW SIMPLY BE,AS IF THAT NEVER OCCURRED ANDTHAT THAT IS NOT BINDING ON YOU,AN OFFICER OF THE COURT.WOULD NOT THE JUDGE THAT WASPRESIDING OVER THOSE PLEAAGREEMENTS BE SHOCKED TO FINDOUT THAT YOU DID NOT MEAN WHATYOU SAID WHEN YOU SAID IT THEN?
JUDGE, YOU'RE GETTING INTOINTENT.WHAT I INTENDED AND WHAT THEJUDGE INTENDED.
I'M GETTING IN TO WHAT I TAKETO BE THE PLAIN MEANING OF THESEWORDS.NOW, TELL ME HOW YOU CAN PLACEANY OTHER INTERPRETATION ON THEWORDS THAT YOU USED THAT IQUOTED AND THERE ARE OTHERSTATEMENTS THERE, THAT MEANTANYTHING OTHER THAN THE FACTTHAT IN PLEADING TO A JUDGE TOSHOW YOU LENIENCY OR MERCY THERETHAT YOU WANTED THE JUDGE TOKNOW THAT YOU WERE SACRIFICINGALL THREE LICENSES TO PRACTICELAW IN THREE DIFFERENT STATES,OBVIOUSLY EXPLICITLY INCLUDINGTHE STATE OF FLORIDA.
JUDGE, THE -- IN THIS -- IBELIEVED, WHEN I WAS TELLING THEJUDGE, SACRIFICE AND SURRENDER,THAT THAT WORD MEANT THE TURNINGOVER OF MY LICENSE TO THE STATEOF FLORIDA AND A LOSS OF THATLICENSE TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA.ON NOVEMBER 3, 2003, WHEN ICONSENTED TO THE SUSPENSION ANDTHE CASE LAW BOTH INSIDE ANDOUTSIDE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDATO FIND SUSPENSION AS ASACRIFICE AND A SURRENDER,THAT'S WHAT I MEANT.
I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.YOU ARE -- WHAT'S YOUR STATUS INNEW YORK?
I WAS AUTOMATICALLY DISBARREDIN NEW YORK UPON COMMISSION OFTHIS FELONY.
OK.AND IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIAHE?
THAT PROCEEDING IS PENDINGBEFORE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIACOURT OF APPEALS.
YOU ARE AWAR OF OUR CASE --AWARE OF OUR CASE LAW THAT SAYSWE WILL NOT ALLOW PRACTICE OFLAW IN FLORIDA OF WHEN DISBARREDIN YOUR HOME STATE.IS NEW YORK YOUR HOME STATE?
YES.BUT UNDER FLORIDA BAR VERSUSJOHN, YOU HOLD THAT THE MEREDISBARMENT IN THE STATE OF NEWYORK IS NOT -- DOES NOT RESULTNECESSARILY IN THE STATE OFFLORIDA.THE STATE OF FLORIDA HASAGGRAVATING AND MITT GASSING --MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES ANDPROVIDES A PROCEDURE WHEREBYSOMEONE CAN SHOW THECIRCUMSTANCES TO NOT BEDISBARRED.NEW YORK DOESN'T HAVE THAT.
OK.BUT I THINK THIS THEN THIS CASEREALLY POINTS OUT A PROBLEM,BECAUSE YOU SAID, IN ANSWER TOJUSTICE ANSTEAD'S QUESTION, THATTHIS WASN'T A PLEA AGREEMENT INFLORIDA, IF THIS HAD HAPPENED INFLORIDA, FLORIDA WOULD HAVEFORCED YOUR DISBARMENT.NEW YORK WAS YOUR MAIN STATE.NEW YORK HAS DISBARRED YOU.YOUENTrd A PLEA AGREEMENT IN NEWYORK THAT SAID YOU'RESURRENDERING YOUR LICENSE.I JUST DON'T SEE THE MATTER OFLAW AND ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OFTHE BAR REFEREE'S FINDINGS THATYOU DID INTEND TO SURRENDER YOURLICENSE.HE DID NOT FIND YOUR EXPLANATIONCREDIBLE, WE WOULD DO ANYTHINGSHORT OF DISBARMENT IN THISSTATE.AS A POLICY MATTER AND INDEFERENCE TO NEW YORK.
AS A POLICY MATTER, I WOULDTHINK THAT THE FLORIDACONSTITUTION ARTICLE 5, SECTION15, AND THE FLORIDA BARSTANDARDS FOR AGGRAVATING ORMITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, SHOULDBE APPLIED TO MY CONDUCT, ANDTHIS EFFORT TO SAY WHAT DID YOUMEAN WHEN YOU SAID SACRIFICE ANDSURRENDER, WHAT DID THE JUDGEMEAN, THE JUDGE IN NEW YORKCLEARLY DID NOT RELY ON ANYTHINGI SAID IN PASSING MY SENTENCE.ENACTING MY SENTENCE.HE SAID HE WAS SENTENCING MEBASED ON THE AMOUNT OF MONEYTHAT'S IN THE RECORD.
WHAT DID YOU -- YOU CONTESTEDYOUR DISBARMENT IN THE STATE OFNEW YORK?
I HAVE NOT CONTESTED MYDISBARMENT IN THE STATE OF NEWYORK, BECAUSE THERE'S NO PROCEEDYOU'RE THERE TO MITIGATE ORAGGRAVATE -- THE AGGRAVATINGCIRCUMSTANCES.THE LAW THERE, EVEN THOUGH THREEFEDERAL CIRCUITS HAVE SAIDAUTOMATIC DISBARMENT UPONCONVICTION OF A FELONY,
WITHOUT ANY MERITS LOOKING
AT WHAT HAPPENED IS
CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION.
NEW YORK'S LAW SECTION 90 IS
STILL A RULE.
PIT IS AUTOMATIC DISBARMENT.
THAT IS NOT THE LAW IN THE
STATE OF FLORIDA.
IT ISN'T THE LAW IN THE
STATE OF FLORIDA THAT IF YOU
ARE PRACTICING IN YOUR HOME
STATE AND YOU COMMIT CONDUCT
THAT CAUSES THAT HOME STATE
TO ISSUE AN ORDER OTHER OF
DISBARMENT, FLORIDA DOES
REQUIRE THAT YOU BE
REINSTATED IN YOUR HOME
STATE BEFORE YOU PERMITTED
TO PRACTICE LAW IN FLORIDA.
>> I THINK THERE IS A
DIVISION.
I DON'T HAVE THE CASE RIGHT
OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
I THINK THERE IS TWO CASES
THE VERGE ON THAT.
BECAUSE THE NEW YORK
DISPARMENT IS FIVE YEARS.
THE FLORIDA DISBARMENT, IT
IS SEVEN YEARS, THE FLORIDA
IS FIVE YEARS.
>> AREN'T THOSE IN CASES
WHERE NEW YORK HAS ENTERED
RECIPROCAL.
THE CONDUCT HAS OCCURRED IN
FLORIDA.
FLORIDA HAS DISBARRED THE
LAWYER AND NEW YORK AS
RECIPROCAL.
NOTHING HAPPENED IN NEW YORK
ENTERS DISBARMENT.
IT IS LONGER THAN THE
FLORIDA LAW REQUIRES ISN'T
THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT
WE PERMIT THE FLORIDA LAWYER
TO PRACTICE LAW?
NOT UNDER YOU ARE YOUR
CIRCUMSTANCE OF YOUR HOME
STATE?
DO YOU MOT UNDERSTAND THE
LAW TO BE THAT WAY?
>> I DON'T -- MY
UNDERSTANDING WAS, TWO CASES
IN FLORIDA REGARDING THE
LENGTH OF TIME OF
DISBARMENT.
IT DOESN'T RELATE TO WHICH
IS THE HOME STATE FOR THE
DISBARMENT?
>> I DON'T KNOW.
I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO
THAT QUESTION.
>> BUT I DO KNOW THAT THERE
ARE, THAT RATHER THAN GO
DOWN THIS PATH OF WHAT THE
REFEREE DID TO SAY, I THINK
IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE
WORD SACRIFICE AND SURRENDER
MEANS THE TENDERING OF THE
LICENSE.
I DO NOT COME BEFORE THIS
COURT TO MAKE A MOM RY OF
WHAT I DIN THE NEW YORK
COURT.
I HONESTLY BELIEVED AND AT
THAT TIME.
I WAS STILL SUFFERING FROM
THE CONDITIONS FOR WHICH I
AM RECEIVED TREATMENT.
I HONESTLY BELIEVED THEN,
AND I DON'T COME IN FRONT OF
YOU TODAY WHEN I USE THE
WORD SACRIFICE AN SUN
REMEMBER DEN, THERE WAS NO
CONSIDERATION GIVE TON WHAT
THE STANDARDS EVEN WERE IN
FLORIDA.
THE NEW YORK JUDGE CERTAINLY
DIDN'T APPLY FLORIDA
STANDARDS TO EVALUATE MY
WORDS AND HE CERTAINLY
DIDN'T RAE LIE ON ANYTHING I
SAID IN PASSING THE
SENTENCE.
>> RELY ON YOUR INDICATION
THAT YOU ARE WILLING TO GIVE
UP YOUR LICENSE FOR THAT YOU
ARE AGREEMENT TO THE PLEA
AGREEMENT?
>> THERE WAS NO, THERE WAS
NO, THERE WAS UNDERSTANDING
THAT I WOULD INFORM THE
FLORIDA AND D.C. COURTS OF
WHAT HAPPENED IN NEW YORK.
THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT
THAT I USE -- I USED THE
WORDS RESIGN OR CONSENT TO
BE DISBARRED.
THAT WAS NOT REQUIRED BY THE
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY.
THAT WAS NOT REQUIRED BY THE
JUDGE.
THAT WAS NOT INCORPORATED IN
A PLEA AGREEMENT LIKE IN
FLORIDA BAR, THERE WAS A
PLEA AGREEMENT AND IT WAS --
THIS COURT RECITED THAT PLEA
AGREEMENT.
>> THAT ON YOUR OWN AS A
PART OF YOUR SPEAKING TO THE
COURT.
YOU CAME UP WITH THAT ON
YOUR OWN TO SURRENDER OR
GIVE UP YOUR LICENSE, YOU
CAME UP WITH THAT ON YOUR
OWN?
THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION OF
THAT WITH THE PROSECUTOR?
>> WELL, IT WAS CLEAR IN NEW
YORK THAT THE PLEA TO THE
FELONY CONVICTION WAS
RESULTING IN THE AUTOMATIC
DISBARMENT IN NEW YORK, BUT
IT WAS NOT CLEAR IN ANY
OTHER JURISDICTION.
IT WAS NOT DEMANDED, THE
WORDS WERE NOT USED ANY
WHERE YOU WILL CONSENT TO BE
DISBARD OR YOU WILL TENDER
YOUR RESIGNATION.
I WOULD SAY THAT EVEN IN
CASES LIKE IN KENTUCKY CASE
CITEDEN MY BRIEF WHERE AN
ATTORNEY PETITIONED TO
RESIGN WHEN THE SUPREME
COURT OF KENTUCKY AND WAS
CONSENTED TO BY THE KENTUCKY
BAR ASSOCIATION, THE SUPREME
COURT JUST DOESN'T ACCEPT --
EYE GUESS MY PROBLEM WITH
WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS IF
THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT WITH
THE PROSECUTOR, THAT WOULD
BE A CONDITION OF THE PLEA.
IF THE JUDGE DIDN'T USE IT
AS A PART OF MAKING HIS
SENTENCING DETERMINATION,
THEN WHAT WAS THE POINT OF
SAYING IT?
THAT YOU WERE GOING TO SUR
REASON DER THE OTHER
LICENSES.
>> THE POINT OF SAYING IT
WAS THAT, IS THAT, YOU KNOW,
AN ATTORNEY UNLIKE --
SOMEONE WITH A LICENSE,
UNLIKE SOMEBODY WITHOUT A
LICENSE IN NEW YORK LOSES
THE LICENSE AN IN OTHER
STATES IS SACRIFICING.
WELL, THAT IS TRUE.
LOSE IT IN MORNING.
WHY DID YOU SAY ANYTHING
ABOUT FLORIDA AND D.C. AT
ALL?
>> BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY GOING
TO BE REP PRICUSSIONS IN
THOSE OTHER JURISDICTIONS.
WHAT THOSE REPERCUSSIONS,
ARE I AM ASKING FOR A
DETERMINATION OF THE MERIT,
LOOK, YOU USING THE WORDS
SURRENDER AND SACRIFICE,
USED IN THE DICTIONARY
DEFINITION AN USED IN
FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASES
WHERE --
>> I JUST WANT TO, YOU KNOW,
YOU ARE IN REBUTTAL.
I HAVE A QUESTION, YOU
REALLY UNDERSTAND OR EXPECT
COULD BE ABLE TO EVEN APPLY
THE PRACTICE LAW IN FLOOR
2K5 UNTIL YOU ARE REINSTATED
IN NEW YORK UNDER ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS
COURT'S JURISPRUDENCE.
>> THERE ARE CASES THAT
PROVIDE FOR THAT.
EVEN JUDGE REYNOLDS SAID, IN
MY CIRCUMSTANCE, GIVEN MY
AGE, AND PHYSICAL
CHARACTERISTICS, THAT, AND,
UM, MEDICAL CONDITIONS THAT
THIS DISBARMENT IS A PERM
PRESIDENT DISBARMENT, HE
WOULD NOT RECK MEN THAT.
THERE ARE 18 MITIGATING
FACTORS.
THERE HAS BEEN NO FLORIDA
CASE WHERE THERE HAS BEEN SO
FEW AGGRAVATING FACTORS THAT
DISBARMENT HAS BEEN IMPOSED
AND SO JUDGE REYNOLD, HE HAD
HUNG UP ON THE SURRENDER
SACRIFICE ISSUE WHICH IS A
CONCERN THE JUDGE CONCERNED
THE JUDGE UNDERSTAND THAT,
BUT ALL I AM ASKING IS DON'T
IMPOSE DEFINITIONS THAT WHAT
DID DOW?
I WAS GOING TO SUN REMEMBER
DEND AND SAG SACRIFICE MY
LICENSE.
DIME FLORIDA ON NOVEMBER
3rd.
I CONSENTED TO THE
SUSPENSION OF MY LICENSE,
WHICH TO ME WAS SURRENDER
AND SACRIFICE.
YOU MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT
DEFINITIONAL VIEW OF IT, BUT
DON'T DISBAR ME OF FLORIDA
BASED ON DEFINITION OF A
WORD.
I MEAN, THERE IS 18 FACTORS,
THERE IS 30-YEARS PLUS OF
LAW PRACTICE, 10 YEARS OF
DEDICATED SERVICE TO NEW
YORK STATE, VOLUNTEER
SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY.
I MEAN, THERE IS A LOT OF
OTHER FACTORS, AND TO SEIZE
ON A DEFINITION FACTOR THAT
HAS NEVER BEEN FOUND BY THIS
COURT BEFORE.
YOU HAVE EXCEEDED YOUR
ARGUMENT ALLOTTED TIME.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> TIME FOR REBUTTAL?
>> I WILL GIVE YOU A MINUTE.
>> OKAY.
>> YOUR HONOR, MAY IT PLEASE
THE KOURD COURT.
MY NAME IS EDWARD IT TUR
RAL, DE HE I AM HERE
REPRESENTING THE FLORIDA
BAR.
THE FLORIDA BAR IS ASKING
THAT YOU DISBAR MR. CRONER.
MR. KRORN KROUNER IS A
FELON, A FRAUD, A THIEF, AND
A FORMER.
YOU DON'T SAY THAT AS THE
OPINION OF THE FLORIDA BAR,
THOSE ARE HIS WORDS AND THE
FINDINGS OF OTHER COURTS.
HE WAS CONSRUCTED OF THREE
FELONY CONVICTIONS IN NEW
YORK INVOLVING FRAUD.
HE WAS CLAIMING DISABILITY
BENEFITS WHILE HE WAS STILL
WORKING.
RESERVED ABOUT 97,000
DOLLARS WORTH OF DISABILITY
BENEFITS WHILE
SIMULTANEOUSLY EARNING MORE
THAN THAT IN PRIVATE
PRACTICE OF LAW.
>> NO, HE DID, IN FACT, MAKE
RESTITUTION OF THAT MONEY
THAT HE RECEIVED FROM WORKER
COMP, CORRECT?
>> YES, HE MADE FULL
RESTITUTION OF THE FULL
AMOUNT OF THE $97,000.
>> THAT IS ONE OF THE
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
THAT WAS FOUND IN THE CASE?
>> JUDGE REYNOLDS DID FIND
THAT, THE FLORIDA BAR ARGUED
THAT POINT.
WE FELT IT WAS COMPELLED
RESTITUTION BECAUSE IT WAS
PART OF THE SENTENCE;
HOWEVER, THE REFEREE FOUND
IT TO BE A MITIGATING FACTOR
BECAUSE BASED UPON
MR. KROUNER'S TESTIMONY, HE
HAD OFFERED TO PAY IT BACK
BEFORE THE CRIMINAL -- THE
REFEREE CONSIDERED ALL OF
THE MITIGATING FACTORS THAT
THE RESPONDENTED A
REINDICATES TODAY, THAT IS
CORRECT?
>> YES, WE SIR.
WE WENT THROUGH THE
MITIGATING FACTORS ONE BY
ONE PER THE STANDARDS.
>> IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING
OF THE FLORIDA LAW THAT HE
REALLY ISN'T ENTITLED TO
ADMISSION WHILE DISBARRED IN
HIS HOME SENATE
>> THAT IS CORRECT, YOUR
HONOR.
I BELIEVE THE CASES ARE
SAUNDERS AND UNTRACK THAT
STATE, UNLESS YOU ARE
REINSTATED IN YOUR HOME
STATE YOU, WHETHER SUSPENDED
OR DISBARRED, YOU ARE NOT
ALLOWED TO PRACTICE IN THE
STATE OF FLORIDA.
>> ARE YOU I WEAR OF ANY
OTHER CASES THAT SPEAK
AGAINST THAT THAT SAY YOU
CAN BE DISBARRED IN THE HOME
STATE, THAT FLORIDA IS
REQUIRED TO PERMIT TO YOU
PRACTICE LAW?
>> NO, SIR, I AM NOT.
I DIDN'T RESEARCH THAT
PARTICULAR ISSUE EITHER.
>> DOES THAT MEAN UNDER
SANDERS WERE NOT ALLOWED TO
CONSIDER MITIGATING FACTOR?
>> NO, SIR.
YOU CAN CERTAINLY CONSIDER
AGGRAVATING FACTORS.
THIS COURT COULD SEE YOU
SIDE TO SUSPEND MR. KROUNER,
BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE
REFEREE RECOMMEND A AND THE
BAR PROPOSES TODAY.
YOU COULD DO THAT; HOWEVER,
HE WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO
GET REINSTATED TO PRACTICE
AN ACTUALLY PRACTICE IN
FLORIDA UNTIL REINSTATED.
>> WELL, IF PRESUSPENDED.
WE KNOW THAT SEVEN YEARS IN
NEW YORK, HE WOULD BE PASTS
THE THREE YEARS OF SUSPICION,
YOU WOULDN'T SUGGEST THAT
HIS DIFFERENCE IS DISBARMENT
AS HAVING TO TAKE THE
FLORIDA BR AGAIN.
I MEAN, YOU ARE NOT SUGGESTING
THAT WHERE SOMEBODY IS UNDER
A LONG-TERM DISBARMENT IN
THEIR HOME STATE THAT WE
WOULD DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN
-- I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW --
HOW COULD WE INDEFINITELY
SUSPEND HIM AND THEN NOT
REQUIRE HIM TO DO WHAT HE
WOULD DO FOR THE ATTORNEY
WHICH IS REQUIRE AND TO
RETAKE THE FLORIDA BAR?
>> DON'T MISUNDERSTAND ME,
YOUR HONOR.
I AM NOT SUGGESTING YOU DO
SUSPEND HIM, WE ARE TRONGLY
URGING YOU DISBAR HIM?
IF YOU DID SUSPEND HIM;
HOWEVER, ASSUMING THE COURT
THE LENIENCY TO DO THAT.
WAS CONVICTED IN MAY OF 2003
ASSUMING HE WAS REINSTATED
SEVEN YEARS FROM THAT DATE,
THAT WOULD BE 2010.
I GUESS, I HAVE, AIM
CONCERNED ABOUT IT AN
ANOMALY THAT I THINK WE HAVE
GOT HERE IN OUR LAW, YOU
KNOW, I GUESS, WE ARE A
LITTLE MORE IM PASSIONATE IN
THE AREA THAN THE STATE OF
NEW YORK IS WITH AUTOMATIC
DEPLOYMENT, BUT WHEN IT IS
SOMEBODY'S HOME STATE, AND I
DON'T KNOW ALL DETAILS OF
WHAT TYPE OF LAW MR. KROUNER
WAS PRACTICING, IF ANY, IN
FLORIDA, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME
THAT DOING ANYTHING OTHER
THAN EXACTLY WHAT THE HOME
STATE IS DOING IN THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES, WOULD MAKE A
MOCKERY OF WHAT OCCURRED IN
NEW YORK, WHICH IS THAT WE
SERIOUS CRIME WAS COMMITTED,
AS YOU SAY FELONY, AND
WHETHER, WHATEVER SAID ABOUT
SURRENDERING OR WHATEVER THE
FACT IS FROM THE POLICY OF
THIS COURT AND THE
DIFFERENCE TO ANOTHER STATE,
I JUST DON'T SEE LEGALLY OR
THAT WE WOULD WANT TO START
WEIGHING AGGRAVATORS AND MIT
DPITORS IN THE SITUATION
LIKE THIS.
PU ARE SAYING, YES, WE
SHOULD OR COULD AND
OBVIOUSLY JUDGE REYNOLDS
DID.
DOESN'T THAT BOTH ARE THE
BAR?
>> NO, THAT IS PROCEDURE OF
THIS COURT AND THAT THE
FLORIDA BAR.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH
CONSIDERING AGGRAVATING.
IN OTHER WORD, WHY SHOULD
WE?
IF SOMEBODY, IT IS NOT
PRIMARILY PRABLT ISING IN
OUR STATE HAVE OUR, YOU
KNOW, REFEREE GOES THROUGH
WHAT WAS GONE THROUGH IN A
LONG HEARING AND HAVE THIS
KIND OF REVIEW, WHY WOULDN'T
WE WANT, AND MAYBE THIS
WOULD BE THE FUTURE JUST TO
SAY WHEN IT IS HOME STATE,
NO SANCTION LESS THAN
SANCTION OF THE HOME STATE
IS WHAT WILL BE IMPOSED.
>> AS PRACTICAL MATTER.
MOST RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINES
RESULT IN THE SAME
DISCIPLINE OF THE HOME STATE.
WE DO PROVIDE THE RESPONDENT
THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME TO
FLORIDA AND PRESENT
AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES.
>> I THOUGHT WE ATTEMPTED TO
AT LEAST CLARIFY THAT IN OUR
RECENT DECISION.
AND SAY THAT THE LEAD HAS
GOT TO BE THE STATE IN WHICH
THE FELONY OCCURRED AND
FIRST DISBARS THE LAWYER
BECAUSE WE ARE NOT GOING TO
HAVE A LAWYER PRACTICING IN
FLORIDA THAT IS -- HAS BEEN
DISBARRED BECAUSE OF A
FELONY IN ANOTHER STATE.
UNTIL SUCH TIME IS THAT
MATTER IS CLEARED UP IN THE
OTHER STATE, BECAUSE THEY
ARE THE LEAD AND I AM
SOMEWHAT SURPRISED BUT THAT
IS NOT WHAT HAS BEEN READ IN
THE CASE BECAUSE THAT IS
WHAT WE TRIED TO SAY.
>> AND IT CERTAINLY MAKES
SENSE FROM A PUBLIC POLICY.
WE DON'T WANT FLORIDA TO
BECOME A HAVEN FOR DISBARRED
ATTORNEYS ACROSS THE
COUNTRY.
>> AND ALSO, THE MITIGATION
WOULD NEVER PERMITED THAT TO
GO BEYOND HIND THE
CONVICTION OR TO CHALLENGE
THE! THE UNDERLYING
CONVICTION IN SOME WAY.
>> NO, CIRCUMSTANCE I DON'T
BELIEVE THE FLORIDA BAR IS
DOING THAT NOR REFEREE
INTENDED TO DO THAT.
I BELIEVE THE REFEREE
CONDUCTED PROCEDURES
ACCORDING TO WITH THE LEVER
OF THE LAW.
DESPITE MR. KROURN'S
ARGUMENT DID NOT STOP HIM
FROM PREVENTING EVIDENCE AND
FROM CONSIDERING EVERYTHING
THAT MR. KROUNER HAD TO SAY.
IT WAS, IN FACT, HE STATES
HE WAS IMPRESSED BY THE
MEDICAL TESTIMONY, BUT WHEN
HE HEARD, IN HIS WEIGHING OF
THE EVIDENCE, HE HAD AGREED
TO SUR REASON DER THE
LICENSES, HA WAS IT FOR HIM.
IT TK TOOK IT OVER THE EDGE,
THE AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES COMPLETELY
OUTRAGE WEIGHED.
YOU STAND BY THE REFEREE?
>> YES, WITH ONE EXCEPTION
OF HIS ALTERNATIVE
RECOMMENDATION.
WHERE HE SAID THIS COURT
DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE
FINDING REGARDING SURRENDER
AND SACRIFICES BEING
MISLEADING AND IN
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
AND THE ONE DETERMINING
FACTOR THAT YOU SHOULD
SUSPEND HIM.
THE FLORIDA BAR BELIEVES
REGARDLESS OF THE SURRENDER
OR THE SACRIFICE THAT HE
SHOULD BE DISBARRED BECAUSE
HE WAS CONVICTED BECAUSE HE
HAS PRIOR, BECAUSE THOSE
PRIORS INVOLVED THE THEFT OF
$900 SOME ODD DOLLARS TO
TELEPHONE SERVICE TO TOYOTA.
>> WAS THAT IN NEW YORK
ALSO?
>> THAT WAS IN NEW YORK
ALSO.
>> WHAT IS THE STATUS?
WHAT IS THE RECORD ON
PRACTICING IN FLORIDA AND IN
NEW YORK?
WAS THIS MAINTAINING?
>> ACCORDING TO TESTIMONY
AND TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE, HE WAS NOT PRACT
USING AT ALL IN PLOR DAND
AND HAS NOT PRACTICED IN
FLORIDA EXCEPT FOR
PROCEEDINGS.
>> THIS SEEMS TO ME, IF WE
ARE GOING HAVE A DIFENCE TO
THE HOME STATE AND TO, YOU
KNOW, IF WE SAY, WELL, YOU
CAN PRESENT MITIGATING
EVIDENCE, BUT WE ARE MOT
GOING TO CONSIDER IT, WE
REALLY NOT DO THE THAT TO
ATTORNEYS GIVEN AN ALLUSION
THERE MAY BE HOPE OF
SOMETHING LESS THAN WHAT
THEY GET IN THE HOME STATE,
DON'T YOU THINK WE WOULD
REALLY BE BETTER OFF
CLARIFYING THIS ONCE AND FOR
ALL?
>> I THINK THERE IS AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COURT TO
DO LESS, IT MAY BE THAT A
FELONY IN NEW YORK IS A
MISDEMEANOR IN FLORIDA.
YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY, THERE
ARE VAGUE REASONS AND
STRANGE LITTLE DETAILS IN
EVERY STATE THAT THIS COURT
MIGHT AT SOME POINT FEEL,
YOU KNOW, THAT IS A FELONY,
IN THIS THAT STATE, BUT A
MISDEMEANOR HERE, YOU ARE
DOING SOMETHING LESSOR.
AS SAID.
PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, IT IS
USUALLY THE SAME DISCIPLINE
IMPOSED IN THE OTHER STATE
AND ON OCCASION, GREATER
DISCIPLINE.
I CAN NOT RECALL AT THIS
MOMENT THAT THIS COURT OR
THE BAR HAS EVER CONDONED
AND WENT FOR A LESSER
SANCTION THAN IMPOSED ON THE
HOME STATE.
>> THE REFEREE MAKE A
CREDIBILITY DETERMINATION
ABOUT MR. KROURN'S SACRIFICE
LANGUAGE?
>> YES, HE DPOUND THAT TO BE
MISLEADING.
HE WASN'T SURE FIT WAS
MISLEADING TO THE HOME STATE
COURT IN TERMS THAT HE WAS
SAYING SACRIFICE AN DIDN'T
MEAN IT THAT TIME, OR IF HE
WAS DISSEMBLING NOW IN FRONT
OF REFEREE, WHERE WE
ACTUALLY MEANT IT, HE DIDN'T
GET A SENTENCE THAT HE
APPRECIATED AND NOW WAS
COMING AND TRYING TO TAKE IT
BACK, BUT HE DID FIND THAT
THAT WAS DECEPTIVE PRACTICE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> MR. KROUNER, WE'LL GAVE
COUPLE MINUTES.
>> FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO
REQUEST THIS IS THE HE FIRST
I AM HEARING ABOUT THIS
DECISION.
IF I MAY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY
TO MAKE SUBMISSION ON THOSE
CASES AFTER THIS ARGUMENT.
>> THAT IS FINE.
FIVE DAYS FILE WHAT WOULD
YOU LIKE.
>> THAT MAY BE DIFFICULT.
I WON'T BE BACK TO WHERE CAN
I MAKE THAT.
>> PLEASE PROCEED WITH
ARGUMENT.
>> OKAY.
>> THE UNITED STATES SUPREME
COURT CASE IS IN THE CONTEXT
WHERE THE FEDERAL COURT WILL
QLR IT WILL IMPOSE BASED ON
WHAT THE STATE COURT DID.
ONE OF THE FIRST TESTS THAT
THE FEDERAL COURT IS WAS
THEIR DUE PROS STHENS HOME
STATE?
BY DUE PROSS, THEY MEAN, DID
THE HOME STATE CONDUCT A
HEARING ON THE UNDERLINING
CIRCUMSTANCES BEHIND THE
CRIME?
AND IN THREE CASE, ON THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, IN THE
8th AND 9th CIRCUIT.
IT WAS HELD NEW YORK
AUTOMATIC HE PROSEED DURE
VIOLATES DUE PROCESS.
THE UNITED STATES SUPREME
COURT SETS WHAT DUE PROCESS
IS.
ALL STATES FOLLOW THAT
DOCTRINE.
THE AUTOMATICALLY DISBAR
SOMEONE LIKE NEW YORK DOES,
THAT IS NOT A BASIS OF A
FELONY WITH NO CONSIDERATION
OF POSSIBLE MEDICAL
CIRCUMSTANCES IS CONTRARY TO
-- SO DID YOU CHALLENGE YOUR
NEW YORK DISBARMENT ON THE
BASIS OF THAT FEDERAL LAW?
>> I AM DOING THAT ON THE
FEDERAL COURTS WHERE THAT IS
THE ISSUE.
AND IF I GET FEDERAL COURT
AGREE IN MY CASE THAT DUE
PROCESS DECISION.
>> SO YOU HAVE A COURT CASE
PENDING ON THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT IN MANHATTAN
OR WHERE?
>> I HAVE A COURT CASE
PENDING IN THE UNITED STATES
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ARE
FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIRCUIT AN IN THE D.C. COURT
OF APPEALS.
HOW ARE YOU CHALLENGING --
ARE YOU CHALLENGING THE NEW
YORK DISBARMENT IN THE D.C.
PROCEED DOINGS?
>> YES.
BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE TO
GIVE DUE PROCESS.
>> YOU HAD A RULING FROM THE
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT?
EYE HAD, I HAD RULINGS THAT
HAD NOT BEEN FAVORABLE, BUT
THE CASE FINALLY RESOLVED
THERE YET.
THE POINT IS THAT THIS, THAT
THIS COURT HAS A RULE
REGARDING MENTAL HEALTH
AWARENESS AND MY ACTIONS
WERE WRONG AT THE TIME I
COMMITTED THEM, BUT THERE
WERE ALSO THIRD PARTIES THAT
I RELIED UPON, MY JUDGMENT
WAS EXTREMELY WRONG AND EVER
SINCE IN 2003, WHEN I
REALIZED WHAT I HAD DONE WAS
WRONG.
I HAVE MADE EVERY
CONCEIVABLE EFFORT THAT I
COULD MAKE TO TRY TO CORRECT
THAT ACTION.
I OFFERED RESTITUTION WHEN
THAT WASN'T SUFFICIENT.
I SERVED, I PLED GUILTY
THOUGH CRIME, SERVED THE
PERIOD OF INCARCERATION.
>> AND MR. KROUNER, I WANT
YOU TO KNOW THOSE EFFORTS AT
REHABILITATION AND GIVING
BACK THE MONEY AND ALL OF
THAT ARE CERTAINLY
CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE BAR
AND THE COURT TAKES INTO
ACCOUNT UPON APPLICATION FOR
REIN STATEMENTMENT, I WOULD
ENCOURAGE TO YOU CONTINUE
THOSE EFFORTS?
WELL, I AM GOING TO DO THAT,
BUT THE POINT IS THAT THIS
WOULD BE THE FIRST CASES
THAT THIS COURT HAS EVER OR
SOMEONE COMMITING THIS
CONDUCT AND MISCONDUCT
RESULTED FROM AN ILLNESS AND
THE ILLNESS WAS BEING
TREATED.
IT'S THE FIRST CASE THIS IS
GOING TO BE THE RESULT IN
THE COURSE OR ON A BASIS OF
AN ILLNESS WHERE SOMEONE HAS
SHOWN REREHABILITATION IN --
THAT IS WHAT THE REFEREE
HERE FOUND?
>> YES, DID HE.
>> HE FOUND THAT YOUR
MISCONDUCT WAS DIRECT RESULT
OF YOUR MENTAL ILLNESS?
HE SAID IT WAS.
INCIDENTALLY JUST ONE OTHER
FACTS, YOU HAD ASK ABOUT ALL
THE MITIGATING FACTORS, 21
TO 23 WHICH IS NOT CONTESTED
IN THE BAR COUNCIL'S BRIEF.
THERE ARE 18 MIT GETTING
FACTORS.
THE REPORT OF THE REFEREE
FOUND EIGHT MITIGATING
FACTORS.
I MADE A DETAILED ANALYSIS
IN THE INITIAL BRIEF OF THE
EVIDENCE AND THE LAW
SUPPORTING THE 18 MITIGATING
FACTORS I SO I SAY IF THERE
IS MORE MITIGATING FACTORS
THIS COURT SHOULD BE LOOKING
AT.
>> THANK YOU, YOU HAVE
EXCEEDED YOUR TIME.
APPRECIATE THE ARGUMENTS
WE'LL TAKE THE CASE UNDER
ADVISEMENT.
THE COURT WILL TAKE ITS
MORNING RECESS