The Florida Bar v. Ronald Leon Bloom

SC06-1025

THE NEXT CASE ON THE CALENDAR THIS MORNING IS THE FLORIDA BAR, RONALD LEON BLOOM.
,,,,,,,,.
SCOTT TOZIAN GLEFSH HIEFRNG OENL BEHALF OF MR. BLOOM WHO IS BEFORE THE COURT THIS MORNING, THIS IS A CASE, OF SERIOUS ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!MISCONDUCT, WHERE MR. BLOOM DEBILITATING DRUG ABUSE, CAST OUT ON THE KNOWING INTENTIONAL NATURE OF THE MISCONDUCT THAT HE COMMITTEDIN THE CASE, THAT IS THE STANDARD THIS COURT UNSTATED!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!UNSTATED -- SO THAT WHAT DIDYOU SAY BECAUSE OF HIS ABUSEI DIDN'T HEAR THE WORD, AFTER THAT.
I DIDN'T HEAR I'M SORRY.
WELL YOU SAID, HE HAD THIS -- PERVASIVE ADICTION, AND --
YES, MA'AM.
YES, KNOWING AND INTENTION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!INTENTIONAL.
CAST DOUBT.
THAT WAS CATCH PHRASE IN MARTINEZ GENOVA CASE DECIDEDLAST DECEMBER BY THIS COURT BUT YOU CAN SEE IF THE RECORD THERE IS A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE DRUG ADICTION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ADICTION -- AND THE MISCONDUCT!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!MISCONDUCT.
THE JUDGE DID NOT THE REFEREE DID NOT FIND THAT THE ADDICTIOPREVENTED THE MR. BLOOM FROM ENGAGING IN VERY CALCULATING, KNOWING, INTENTIONAL CONDUCT ON AN ONGOING BASIS, THAT DIRECTLYHARMED MANY, MANY CLIENTS --DID THE REFEREE FIND DIFFERENTLY!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!DIFFERENTLY.
I DISAGREE WITH THAT I THINK HE DID HE SAID THE ONLY PATENT EXPLANATION FOR BEHAVIOR DRUG ADICTION.
THAT IS DIFFERENT THING IMIGHT HAVE A SHOPPING FETISH!!$$!!!!!!!!!!FETISH, AND I YOU KNOW SO I OUT OF CONTROL THAT IS THE ONLY EXPLANATION, BUT, THAT DOESN'T MEAN WHOA I'M DOING ISN'T INTENTIONAL DEATH PENALTY CASES ALL THE TIME WE'VE GOT PEOPLE DRUG ADICTIONS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ADICTIONS, AND THEY KILL, BECAUSE THEY WANT MONEY FOR FOR DRUGS, NONE OF THOSE CASES HAVE EVER BEEN HELD NOT -- SIMPLY KNOWING INTENTIONAL CONDUCT --
WHEN -- WITH THE LINE KAIDZ CONSISTENTLY SAID DEGREE OF CULPABILITY IS AFFECTED BY THE JUDGMENT BEING DIMINISHEDED BY DRUGS.
NOW TALK WHETHER IT IS HOW MITIGATING OR IF IT SHOULD BE MITIGATING IN THISCASE.
THAT IS RIGHT, IN NO WAY ARE WE SAYING EXCUSE IN THISCASE, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM OUR BRIEF WE ARE RECOMMENDING MITIGATED BUSINESS BARMENT TO THREE-YEAR SUSPENSION MOST WILL HE THEE SUSPENSION THISCOURT HANDS TOWN.
YOU ARE SAYING THIS WASN'T INTENTIONAL CALCULATING!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!CALCULATING, MISCONDUCT -- ON MR. BLOOM'S PART -- AND I$$!!!!I --
WHAT THE REFEREE SAID WASTHAT -- THINKING LOGIC STRICTLY DRIVEN BY IMPAIRED MIND RECOGNIZE LSLEYS UNSOUND JUDGMENT I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE YOU CAN EXPLAIN THAT THIS CONDUCT WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED, BUTFOR THE DRUG USE, AND THAT IS THE MITIGATION, NOT AN EXCUSE, BUT THE MITIGATION.AND THE WINS IN THE CASE -- WITNESSES EIGHT JUDGES EXSUPREME CIRCUIT COURT JUSTICE CHIEF JUDGE 4th CIRCUIT STARTED DRUG COURT PROGRAM -- ARRAY OF PEOPLE SAID THIS A MAN CAN BE REHABILITATED THIS SOMEBODY FOR 30 YEARS, HAD A DISTINGUISHED PRACTICE, AND AS A REFEREE FOUND, ALL THE WITNESSES AGREE THAT IT WAS DIRECT RESULT MISCONDUCT BY!!$$!!BY --
I GUESS MY PROBLEM IS WITH THAT, IS EVEN SOMEONE WHO IS DISBARRED WHICH IS A FIVE YEAR -- THIS BEFORE THEY COME BACK, THEY HAVE ALSO TO SHOW REHABILITATION,AND TO ME THE SERIOUSNESS OFAND THE NUMBER OF THE SERIOUS ACTS IN THIS CASE SEEM TO SUPPORT DISBARMENT BASED ON ALL OF OUR CASE LAW.
OI HE I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE, IF YOU LOOK AT THETALLER CASE, TALLER, THE RESPONDENT!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!RESPONDENT, MISAPPROPRIATED 56,000 DOLLARS IN THREE MISAPPROPRIATIONS FIVE-MONTHPERIOD!!$$!!!!!!!!!!PERIOD, THIS COURT SAID WE FIND THE DISTINCTION BETWEENCONTINUOUS MISAPPPROPRIATIONOVER LONG PERIOD OF TIME, ASIN CORRESPOND ONNAS TOOK 125,000 DOLLARS, FROM HAVE HIS $$FAMILY'S ESTATE OVER A 3-YEAR PERIOD, AND THE TRAVIS CASE OVER 2-YEAR PERIOD HE TOOK 35,000 DOLLARS OUT, THEY SAID WHEN YOU HAVE INSTANCES WHERE IT IS RELATIVELY FEW INSTANCES,WHICH IN THIS CASE THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE IF YOU LOOK AT THE RECORD.
WHAT WAS THE PERIOD HERE?
WELL, THE MISCONDUCT WAS OVER A TWO-YEAR PERIOD, BUT IT IS PROGRESSAL IT STARTED OUT IN 04,F WITH THE BASCASETHE HEATH$$!!CASE AS BEING LACK OF COMMUNICATION THOSE TYPESCOMPLAINTS THEN INTO THE LOANS WHICH THE BAR HAS CONCEDED WOULD NOT MAKE IT ADISBARMENT CASE THEN EVENTUALLY!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!EVENTUALLY, IN OCTOBER OF 05, RIGHT NEAR THE END, YOU CAN SEE PROGRESSION OF THE CONDUCT GETTING WORSE WHAT HE BORROWED MONEY FROM MISS FERNANDEZ 5,000 DOLLARS AND THEN, TOOK THE 7,000 DOLLARSEXCUSE ME 10,000 -- 10750 FROM MR. COLBERT, SO THE ONLY.
COLBERT ONE THAT IS THE ONE THEY WENT TO THE.
CHECK CASHING, SO IF OKAY.
THAT WAS AT THE VERY BOTTOM!!$$!!!!!!!!!!BOTTOM.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT SITUATION, AND TAKING MONEY FROM A TRUST ACCOUNT?
I DON'T THINK THERE IS REAL DISTINCTION THERE.
AND REGARDLESS OF ANY -- ISSUES WITH DRUG ABUSE, HAVEN'T WE SAID WHEN YOU TAKE MONEY FROM A TRUST ACCOUNT THAT IN ITSELF, IS ADISBASHL OFFENSE.
PRESUMPTIVELY SO, YES, SIR IN MY POSITION IS OUR POSITION IS, THAT THE CASE LAW SUPPORTS MITIGATE$$!!!!ING THAT, BECAUSE OF THE EXTENT OF HIS ADICTION, RECORD IS REPLETE WITH THAT THE REFEREE SUPPORTS, THAT ACTUALLY!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ACTUALLY, HIS FINDINGS, IN TERMS OF THE EXTENT OF THIS MAN'S ADICTION, SUPPORTS MITIGATION SUPPORT A SUSPENSION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SUSPENSION, AND YET, HE FOUND THAT HE SHOULD BE DISBARRED BECAUSE HE SHOULD FOCUS ON RECOVERY WHICH IS NOT A STANDARD THIS COURT EVERY USED.
IS THAT THAT IS JUST LOOKAT THE REASONS SOMEONE MIGHTSTEAL FROM THEIR CLIENTS, ONE MIGHT BE THE SUPPORT LAVISH LIFESTYLE AND THEN YOU HAVE NO MITIGATION, THE OTHER MIGHT BE, AND YOU KNOW, ONE OF THESE -- SOMEONE IN YOUR FAMILY, HAS EXPENSIVE MEDICAL TREATMENT THAT IS NEEDED, AND THAT IS WHY YOU DO IT.IS THERE -- THE PROBLEM THATI HAVE WITH WHETHER THIS SHOULD MITIGATE, AGAINST THEDISBARMENT, IS THAT THE TESTIMONY OF THE PERSONS FROM -- HOW HE KNEW FOR YEARS HE HAD ADICTION.
YES, MA'AM, AND HE REALLYNEVER MADE HE WOULD MAKE -- ATTEMPTS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ATTEMPTS, TO GET TREATMENT, BUT NONE OF THEM THE WAY I READ THE RECORD WAS REALLY SERIOUS ATTEMPTS, I MEAN ANDI COULD SEE IF THIS I KNOW HIS WIFE DIED, TRAGICALLY OFBRAIN CANCER BUT THAT WAS YEARS BEFORE.TO ABOUT THE SPIRALING THAT WAS GOING ON, AND JUST SEEMSTO ME THAT WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT AS I SAID THAT, WE WILL IMPOSE DEATH PENALTYFOR SOMEBODY THAT WOULD KILL, THIS IS -- ADICTION BUT KILL KNOWINGLY I HAVE A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING HOW WE ARE GOING TO EXCUSE A LAWYER WHO STILL WAS CAPABLEOF UNDERSTANDING WHAT HE WASDOING, AND INSTEAD OF GETTING TREATMENT, AND SAYING SOMEONE HAS GOT TO PUT ME IN THERE, I CANNOT PRACTICE ANYMORE, HE JUST CONTINUES TO -- TO STEAL FROM HIS CLIENTS, BIZARRE ACT OF TAKING THE ARTWORK, IDON'T SEE GIVEN THE PERVASIVE NATURE OF IT, AND HIS HISTORY THAT THIS IS THEKIND OF MITIGATION THAT WOULD MITIGATE AGAINST DISBARMENT.
IF I COULD, ADDRESS, THATAGAIN THE TWO CLIENTS, FOR WHOM ARGUABLY HE STOLE WERE MISS FERNANDEZ, OCTOBER 15, '05, AND MR. COLBERT, JANUARY 13, '06, VERY BRIEF PERIOD OF TIME.WHERE THE CLIENTS MONEY WAS TAKEN FROM THEM, AND FERNANDEZ SHE GAVE IT TO HIM, HE SAID, I WON'T GIVE YOU YOUR MONEY IF YOU DON'T GIVE ME LOAN SHE NEW ABOUT IT THAT IS -- THAT SHOULD TELL YOU THE DEGREE OF THE IMPAIRMENT OF HIS MIND THAT HE COULD TELL HIS CLIENT THAT NOT THINK SHE WAS GOINGTO COMPLAIN, I THINK THAT SUPPORTS HOW DIMINISHED HIS CAPACITY WAS, BUT, TO ANSWERYOUR QUESTION ABOUT HOW HE COULD KNOW HE HAD THIS PROBLEM AND NOT ADDRESS IT.JUDGE OPEN TESTIFIED THIS A DISEASE NOT LACK OF SELF-CONTROL DR. GREENFIELD SAID MOST COMMON FORM OF FAILURE INADEQUATE TREATMENTTHAT IS WHAT YOU SEE HISTORYOF YOU SEE HISTORY OF TWO WEEK RESIDENTIAL TREATMENTS,WHICH DIDN'T ADEQUATELY ADDRESS IT DOCTOR JUDGE ARNOLD TALKED FURTHER BEEN INVOLVED IN DRUG COURT HOW DIFFERENT PEOPLE HAVE A DIFFERENT --
AT THE TIME OF THE -- ORDER, AT THE TIME OF THE $$REFEREE'S ORDER, THE REFEREEDID NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF OUR DECISION IN MARTINEZ GENOVA!!$$!!!!!!!!!!GENOVA; IS THAT CORRECT?
I THINK THAT IS CORRECT.
THE ORDER WAS OCTOBER 2006, IT SEEMS TO ME, FROM.
I BELIEVE TAKES CORRECT YES, SIR.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE FACTSIN MARTINIS GENOVA WHY YOU THINK THEY RERATE TO THIS CASE.
YES YOUR HONOR, WHAT IN MARTINEZ GENOVA SHE RECEIVEDMONEY IN FEBRUARY OF 04, ANDWITHIN THREE, 8,000 DOLLARS WITHIN THREE DAYS, SHE DISPERSED THAT MONEY, MONEY SHE WAS SUPPOSED TO HOLD FORFINANCING A FEE FOR -- TWO WEEKS LATER GETS ANOTHER 52000 DOLLARS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!$52,000, AND SHE DISPIERS ALL THAT MONEY WITHIN TWO WEEKS, HAS A NEGATIVE BALANCE IN HER TRUST ACCOUNT.THE KEY TO MARTINEZ, CASE, GENOVA CASE SHE ACCORDING TOTHE COURT TOOK BAR EXAM DURING THIS TIME SUPPOSEDLY IMPAIRED 16 HOURS OF SITTINGOVER THAT, I THINK, INDICATES SOME CLARITY OF MIND, AND ALSO TRIED A COMPLICATED CASE DURING THATTIME I THINK MORE IMPORTANTLY, SHE ONLY HAD BEEN A LAWYER FOR LESS THAN A YEAR, SO THERE WAS NO BASELINE TO LOOK AT, AS IN THIS CASE, 30 YEARS -- AND SAY THIS SOMEBODY WHO CAN BEREHABILITATED!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!REHABILITATED, SO SHE -- SHEGETS THE MONEY TAKES IT RIGHT AWAY IN THAT CASE, SHEIS A YOUNG LAWYER HAS NO REAL REPUTATION ESTABLISHED PASSES THE BAR AND RACE TO ACOMPLICATED CASE WHICH SUGGESTED THAT ADICTION WASN'T -- BAD AS EE.
IN MARTINEZ GENOVA AS I RECALL DID RESPONDENT HAVE AHISTORY OF SEXUAL ABUSE OR PHYSICAL ABUSE WITH HUSBAND OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT?
IN MARTINEZ GENOVA I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS THE CASE NO SHE HAD THREE ARRESTS FOR COCAINE USAGE, NOW IN TALLER CASE HER $$HUSBAND'S ABUSIVE TO HER -- CASE I TALKED ABOUT THE -- WHERE JUST -- A COUPLE OF MISAPPROPRIATIONS 50,000 DOLLARS OVER A FEW MONTHS, THE COURT SAID, THAT IS BETTER THAN CONSISTENTLY OVER TWO OR THREE YEARS, THAT IS -- PARALLEL WE HAVE IN THIS CASE IS THAT FERNANDEZ, ONE AND THE COLBERT, 10700, HAPPENED IN VERY BRIEF PERIOD WHEN HE ABSOLUTELY --
MR. TO SEEIAN!!$$!!!! TOZIAN COULD IASK A GENERAL SKEPTICSAL QUESTION.
YES, SIR.
$$CONCEPTUAL QUESTION HOW DOES THIS FIT INTO THE GENOVA THAT GENTLEMAN A SELL!!$$!!!!!!SELLER A COMMUNITY PERSON WESAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECTTHAT YOU DON'T BUILD UP AN ACCOUNT, THAT PERMITS TO YOUSTEAL FROM YOUR CLIENTS, IS,IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IN CONFLICT WITH THAT?I UNDERSTAND THIS GENTLEMAN HAD A DISTINGUISHED CAREER, BUT I LOOK TO -- TO CORONAS,I SEE THAT DOES NOT EVEN REALLY DOESN'T MITIGATE IT EVEN.
YOU ARE RIGHT, AND, NO BECAUSE -- -- CAREER IS TO TELL YOU THAT -- THERE IS A BASELINE THAT IS REALLY -- IN WHICH WE CAN -- SHOW REHABILITATION IN CORONAS THERE, WAS THEYDICTION.
RIGHT BUT THERE WAS TREMENDOUS, TREMENDOUS BASELINE MAIN THE MAN INVOLVED IN EVERY CHARITABLE-- BOARD OF GOVERNORS, ABSOLUTELY!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ABSOLUTELY, I KNOW THAT IS CORRECT, BUT THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO MITIGATE THIS CULPABILITY.
SUCH AS THE DRUGS HERE WHAT IS YOU ARE SUGGEST THE CORRECT SCHUMANN CASE THE CASE SAYS ALL RECOGNIZE HUCKADICKION TO SUCH EXTENT IT MITIGATES!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!MITIGATES, I ADMIT -- I SUMMIT TO YOU THIS ASSISTANTCASE WHERE IT MITIGATES IF GOING BACK TO PREFLDAYS BEFORE THE LARKIN CASE.
I THINK THAT IS WHERE I STILL -- YOU KNOW USUALLY FLAW, INC COMES IN PRETTY IMPRESSED WITH WHAT IS GOINGON, I YOU KNOW READING OVER THE TEST FROM FLAW, INC I THINK WHAT IS CONCERNED ME ABOUT NOW THAT HE HAS BEEN CAUGHT YEAH HE IS GOING TO BE DOING ALL THESE THINGS, BUT REALLY THAT HE HADN'T MADE SERIOUS ATTEMPTS OVER THE YEARS WITH F-- LAW INC YOU HAVE TO AGREE THAT IS NOT THE KIND OF TESTIMONY YOU AS LAWYER REPRESENTING ALAWYER, YOU WOULD HAVE PROVED THERE TO BE -- PROVEDTHERE TO BE -- PREFERRED THERE TO BE.
-- AS YOU MIGHT GUS, SINCE LAST OCTOBER, YOU KNOW HE IS FURTHER ALONG, I KNOW THAT IS OUTSIDE THE RECORD -- BUT, FURTHER ALONG-- I GUESS I WOULD SAY, REMEMBER HE SUSPEND FOR THREE YEARS, YOU STILL HAVE THE GUARANTEE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC BECAUSE IN ORDER TO GET REINSTATED HE HAS TO RUN -- FLORIDA BAR, HAS TO GET THEIR RECOMMENDATION IF NOT RECOMMENDATION OF REFEREE, AND ULTIMATELY, THIS COURT HAS THE POWER TO KEEP HIM FROM BEING --
HOW DO WE --
SITUATION.
HOW DO WE DEAL WITH THE FACT THAT IT SEEMS TO ME, THAT YOUR CLIENT HAD VARIOUSOPPORTUNITIES ALONG THE WAY TO HELP HIMSELF, HE HAD OTHER CONTRACTS WITH FLA, AND99WHETHER HE WAS ARRESTED FOR -- I GUESS IT WAS POSSESSION, THE STATE ATTORNEY ACTUALLY DROPPED THE CHARGES AFTER HE SAID THAT HE WAS AFTER HE TOLD THEM THAT HE WAS IN ONE OF THESE REHAB PROGRAMS, YET HELEAVES THERE AND STARTS USING THESE -- YOU KNOW STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICES START USING DRUGS AGAIN, SO,AND SO IT SEEMS TO ME YOUR CLIENT ALONG THE LINE HAD OPPORTUNITIES TO HELP HIMSELF, AND NOW WE COME TO THE FINAL THING HERE, AND OKAY, YOU KNOW GIVE ME ONE MORE CHANCE, TO HELP MYSELF!!$$!!!!!!!!!!MYSELF,WHY -- WHY SHOULD WE?
YOU SHOULD, BECAUSE WHAT IS DESCRIBED, ADICTION, STILL PEOPLE GET PROPER TREATMENT -- DR. GREENEVILLETALKED ABOUT IT IS NOT GOINGTO GET BETTER, AND THAT IS THAT IS WHAT IS DIFFERENT, AND -- INEXPLICABLE, IN -- THOSE WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND -- POSSIBLE, THOSE WHO DO KNOW EXPLANATION NECESSARY -- THAT THE NATURE OF ADICTION THAT IS WHY HE IS -- EXPERTS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!EXPERTS -- SO FL.A. IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTANDING THE CASE -- I GOT 30 SECONDSLEFT SAVE FOR REBUTTAL.
THANK YOU.
--
MR. WATSON SO THAT GOOD MORNING YOUR HONOR MY NAME JIM WATSON FOR THE FLORIDA BAR, AND -- [INAUDIBLE]IN SUPPORT OF THE REFEREE'S RECOMMENDATION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!RECOMMENDATION, SO IF COULD I ASK -- AN OVERALL JUST A MINUTE OVERALL ACQUIT?IF WE SEPARATE OUT THE THIS IS FROM -- STEALING FROM CLIENTS TRUST FUND THAT IS CONTAINED OF A CATEGORY THATWE HAVE TREATED BECAUSE OF YOUR POSITION AS A LAWYER, PUT IN YOU A POSITION TO DO IT, AND DISBARMENT IS GENERALLY THERE BUT IF THIS WERE FROM JUST OTHER PEOPLE NOT THROUGH THAT TRUST RELATIONSHIP!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!RELATIONSHIP, AND WE HAVE THE ADDICTION, HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT THAN THOSE FOX THAT SEEK CONDITIONAL ADMISSION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ADMISSION, WHO WHEN THEY GETREADY TO WANT TO GO INTO BARALL OF THE SUDDEN RUN INTO FLA UNTIL THAT POINT THEY HAVE NOT, SO IS THIS CASE INCONFLICT WITH THAT?IF WE SEPARATE OUT THAT IT IS THE TRUST ACCOUNT?DOES THAT MAY -- IN AND OF ITSELF ESTABLISH A DISBARMENT, BUT CONCEPTUALLYSEEMS TO ME THAT WE ARE TREATING LAWYERS DIFFERENT THAN THOSE WHO ARE SEEKING TO COMEN IN IF THE OVERALL, SPECTER IS, IS THAT IT IS DISBARMENT YOU CAN'T BE A LAWYER, DRUGS, EVEN WITH WORKING ON IT, BUT YET WE ARE STILL PUTTING PEOPLE IN HAVE NOT SHOWN EVEN A BASELINE OF GOOD PERFORMANCE, AS A LAWYER.IS THERE A CONFLICT BETWEEN THAT?
I DON'T BELIEVE SO, YOUR HONOR!!$$!!!!!!!!HONOR.
WHY NOT?
AND THINK -- THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN -- AND --A LAWYER -- [INAUDIBLE]THE COURT -- ARE, INVESTIGATION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!INVESTIGATION -- ALL RIGHT WE ARE GOING TO GIVE YOU THIS PERK -- THIS COURT AND,CONTINUOUSLY HELD THAT THE TRUST THAT IS GIVEN TO A LAWYER A PERSON WHO HAS BEENADMITTED TO THE BAR, IS -- SPECIAL, IT IS ACCEPTINGSAL TRUST -- EXCEPTIONAL TRUST, TO ANY OTHER PROFESSION, OUR --
SO THEN -- THE STANDARD THAT WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO NEW ADMITE IS DIFFERENT FROMSOMEONE ALREADY GRANTED THE PRIVILEGE IF THE VIEW --
IF YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN THIS SPECIAL -- TRUST, YOUR CLIENT IS COME TO YOU, EXPECTATION THAT EVERYTHING THAT YOU DO WILL BE TRUSTED,AND IT IS -- NOT A RIGHT YOUDON'T JUST PAY APPLICATION FEE AND BECOME A LAWYER --
LET ME ASK YOU THIS, APPARENTLY WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DISBARMENT, AND THREE-YEAR SUSPENSION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SUSPENSION.
YES, SIR.
WHICH IS THE CLOSEST YOU CAN GET WITHOUT DISBARMENT, SO EXPLAIN WHY THIS IS A DISBARMENT CASE INSTEAD OF ATHREE-YEAR SUSPENSION CASE.
ALL RIGHT -- THIS COURT HAS CONTINUOUSLY HELD THE --THAT THE CLIENT -- FUNDS, AND, PRESUMPTION IS THAT -- MR. -- PRESUMPTION IS DISBARMENT -- THE QUESTION IS WHY ARE WE GOING TO DIFFERENTIATE THIS CASE WHY SUSPENSION CASE, AND I WAY THAT WE CAN LOOK AT IS THAT -- ALL CASES, THAT WE CITED -- IN BRIEF, STILL INDICATE CIRCUMSTANCES -- THIS CASE -- THIS ONE OCCASION CITE BLI TOZIAN TALLER CASE, THISIS ONE, THAT -- A DOCTOR,$$!!!! -- WHO MENTALLY ABUSED HER -- FORCED HAVE HER TO TAKE -- THIS COURT -- LOOKED AT THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND SAID EXCEPT FOR THE PROFESSIONAL -- [INAUDIBLE]THE ROSEN CASE THE BROWN CASE YOU LOOK AT THE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT ARE IN THOSE CASES, WHERE THE COURT CHOSE TO -- NOT DISBARR -- ATTORNEY, LOOK AT THIS CASE, IN THOSE CASES THERE IS THREE THINGS THAT JUMP OUT AT YOU ONE OF THEM IS THAT THE ALTERNATIVE!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ALTERNATIVAL -- ETERNAL -- TRACKAL LAW -- THAT -- CONTINUED ADDICTION --
THEY VOLUNTARILY WENT TO REHABILITATION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!REHABILITATION -- CRIMINAL CONVICTION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!CONVICTION -- THEY START PRACTICING LAW, THEY -- AND THESE ARE NOT PRESENT IN THIS CASE.THE RECORD IN THIS CASE THISIS BASICALLY A DAY AND HALF MITIGATION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!MITIGATION -- THE AND -- TO ALL THE FACTS IN THE CASE ALL THE -- ALL THE VIOLATIONS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!VIOLATIONS, THE REFEREE COMES IN -- THIS -- TESTIMONY THE JUDGES MENTAL HEALTH PEOPLE, AND THEN HE MAKES A FINDING THAT BASED UPON THE CONCLUDE!!$$!!!!!!!!THE FACTS THE VIOLATION IN THIS CAR IS SO EGREGIOUS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!EGREGIOUS, THAT I AM GOING TO RECOMMEND -- DISBAR, AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, AND ALL THE AGGRAVATING -- AGGREGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
CAN I ASK A QUESTION THEYHAVE -- APPEALED THE FAILURETO SPECIFICALLY FUND HIS DRUG ADICTION AS A MITIGATION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!MITIGATION.EVEN IF THAT WERE FOUND WOULD THAT CHANGE EVERYTHINGTHAT YOU ARE YOU JUST ARE ARGUING? .
-- [INAUDIBLE]THAT THE REFUGEE RAE -- TWO MITIGATING FACTORS, IF YOU LOOK AT -- LIKE I EXPLAINED BEFORE THAT IS MITIGATION HEARING, AND THE REFEREE FOUND SENTENCE$$!!!!IVE REPORT -- EXTENSIVE REPORT CONTAINING ALL THE FACTS AND ALL -- EVIDENCE THAT WAS PUT FORTH BY THE WITNESSES.
SO THIS IS A CASE WHERE ADICTION CAUSED THE MISCONDUCT!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!MISCONDUCT, BUT IT COULD ALSO SERVE TO MITIGATE THE MISCONDUCT!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!MISCONDUCT; IS THAT CORRECT?SO IN WEIGHING THAT I GUESS IN ANSWER TO WHAT JUSTICECONCANTERO WAS SAYING WAS THEREANY OTHER REASONS THAT HE DEBT VOLUNTARILY PUT HIMSELFINTO REHAB THAT HE DIDN'T MAKE RESTITUTION, ARE THOSE THE OTHER FACTORS THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER?
YES, MA'AM, AND, LOOK AT DR. BLOOM'S CONDUCT FOR THESE -- YEARS, AS THIS COURT -- POINTED OUT, THAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS -- HE WAS -- COCKCAGE!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!A COULD CONTAIN CHARGE,!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!! -- ACOCAINE CHARGE, A DISPOSITION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!DISPOSITION, WHICH REQUIRED HIM TO -- TO -- SOME TYPE OF-- [INAUDIBLE]IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS REHABILITATION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!REHABILITATION, MR. BLOOM'S -- COUNSEL, SAID ON THE -- SENT A RECORD TO HIS ATTORNEY WHICH JUST ECHOED THAT EVERYTHING MR. BLOOM'S WITNESSES THE REFEREE SAID MR. BLOOM -- REHABILITATION,GOING TO A 12-STEP PROGRAM, ATTENDING AA MEETINGS, HE HAD -- HE HAD NEW APPRECIATION FOR PRACTICE OFLAW AND HE HAD SEVERAL COMPLICATED WORKERS COMP CASES.IT WAS A -- BREAK FROM FEBRUARY, TO -- WHERE HE -- AND HIS OWN COUNSEL SITS THERE AND -- THIS MAN IS -- THE RECORD HE GETS ARRESTED,HE HAS KNEE-JERK REACTION GOES TO ROOB HABITUALTATION REHABILITATION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!REHABILITATION, SUSPENDED GOES TO REHABILITATION --
-- DURING THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD WAS HE FUNGING AS FUN!!$$!!!!FUNNIONING AS A LAWYER, IN OTHER WORDS WAS REPRESENTINGCLIENTS HE WAS GOING TO --
HE ADMITTED IN THE HEARING THAT HE -- PRACTICE OF LAW.
HE WAS MAKING MONEY?
YES, MA'AM, THE CHOICE --THAN TO BUY A CAR I'M GOING TO BUY DRUGS.THE COURT -- THE REFEREE ACKNOWLEDGED IT AND SAID A CHOICE OF LIFESTYLE.
I THINK THAT THERE IS WHERE THOSE WHO UNDERSTAND ADICTION MIGHT SAY THIS IS FURTHER SYMPTOMATIC OF A SERIOUSLY ILL PERSON, BECAUSE ANY RATIONALE PERSONISN'T GOING TO LOSE EVERY ASSETS THEY HAVE EVER HAD PRESIDENT BUT THE QUESTION HOW ON DAY-TO-DAY BASIS HE APPEARED TO -- HIS COWORKERS,WHAT WAS THE OUTWARD APPEARANCE OF --
HE CONTINUED HE WAS A WORKERS COMP SPECIALIST HE CONTINUED TO RUN HIS -- CLIENTS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!CLIENTS, WORKERS COMP SETTLECASES HAD TO SETTLE CASES HAD TO WORK TO -- THIS IS WHERE HE WAS GETTING HIS MONEY.NOW -- NOT ONLY GETTING FEESHE WAS -- FROM HIS CLIENTS THROUGH -- SETTLEMENTS -- COMING IN MR. BRILL, WAS WORKING EVEN HIS DOCTOR, DR.GREENEVILLE SAID -- [INAUDIBLE]OF A FUNNIONING, ADDICT, HE STILL MANAGED TO PULL IT OFFSTILL MANAGED TO PULL OFF, THE ABILITY TO PRACTICE LAW.
WAS THERE
-- I KNOW THAT THERE IS A-- CLAIM HERE, THAT HE STILLOWES THE FINANCE COMPANY THAT HE HAD TO DEAL WITH ALLOF THIS MONEY, BUT ALL OF THIS OCCURRED DURING THE SAME TWO-YEAR PERIOD.
YES, MA'AM.
AND SO, HE WAS ACTUALLY GETTING THE FEES THAT HE FROM HIS CASES, THAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO TURN OVER, TO THIS FINANCE OR BANK -- AND,BUT HE WAS KEEPING IT.
HE HAD -- ENTERED INTO CONTRACTS WITH COMPANY OUT OF NEW YORK CALLED CYBERCEL -- THIS -- THESE CASES CAME RIGHT AFTER HIS REHABILITATION EFFORTS AS A RESULT OF THE DRUG AREST.AND THESE CASES -- ENTERED INTO THE CONTRACT, HE -- SOUGHT THEM OUT THEY DID NOTSEEK HIM OUT, HE RECEIVED, HIS FEE, THESE WERE COURT APPROVED FEES FROM THE CONSULTATION -- HE WAS RECEIVED HIS FEES SETTLED CASES, GAVE HIS -- THIS OTHER -- WAS FWEVEN TO HIM IN TRUST THIS WAS EVEN GO HIM IN TRUST SOMEBODY $$ELSE'SPROPERTY HE HAD GIVEN UP ANYRIGHT TO THIS PROPERTY, HE HAD -- CFS, ALL --
MY REAL POINT HERE IS THAT THESE CASES, WERE WORKED ON, AND COMPLETED DURING THE TIME THIS TWO-YEAR PERIOD, THAT WE ARETALKING ABOUT.
AND ANOTHER THING I FIND.
WAS THAT A YES TO JUSTICEQUINCE!!$$!!!!!!!!!!QUINCE?
O THIS ALL IN A TWO-YEAR PERIOD!!$$!!!!!!!!!!PERIOD.
THIS CASES WORKING ON THESE CASES UP TILL THE TIMES FOUND -- 2005.
JUSTICE CANTERO HAD A QUESTION.
YES INSPIRE WHAT WAS THE EVIDENCE ABOUT WHETHER -- WHEN HE WAS TAKING DRUGS HE WAS TAKING DRUGS DURING THE WORKDAY AND GOING TO COURT OR -- VISITING WITH CLIENTS?WHEN HE HAD BEEN INGESTING DRUGS OR A WEEKEND THING OR -- WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE?
YOUR HONOR, THAT IS -- TESTIMONY, I DON'T HAVE THE RECORD -- MR. BLAIN -- SAY IT WAS -- ADDICTION, HE HAD 20 YEAR ADICTION, THE LAST TWO YEARS -- APPARENTLY CAUGHT UP WITH IN MY SOMETIMES WE SEE CASES WHEREA JUDGE REPORTS SOMEBODY TO THE BAR, AT LEAST EXPRESSES CONCERN, BECAUSE SOMEBODY ISSHOWING UP TO COURT, AND INTOXICATED SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THOSE WE DON'T HAVE THOSE KINDS OF FACTS.
THERE WAS TESTIMONY FROM AN ATTORNEY -- REMITTED -- CFS, THAT THEY CALLED IN REGARDS TO THE RESTITUTION THAEFRTS WERE BEING MADE, EFFORTS THAT WERE BEING MADEAS PART OF -- RELATED TO -- MR. BLOONL!!$$!!M WAS INVOLVED IN DURING THE COURSE OF THE DEPOSITION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!DEPOSITION, IN A CASE THEY HAD -- WHY WOULDN'T THREE-YEAR SUSPENSION BE JUST AS ADEQUATE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC AND YET SEND OUT A STRONG SIGNAL OF CONDEMNATION OF THIS CONDUCT?
YOUR HONOR, I THINK THE FACTS!!$$!!!!!!!!FACTS, I THINK THE PROBLEM HERE IS WHAT JUSTICEFIES DISBARMENT, THAT IS THIS IS NOT AN ACCEPTINGSAL CASE, NOT EXCEPTIONAL CASE THAT ISSTANDARD CASE FOR A LAWYER, THE TRUST NOT ONLY HIS CLIENTS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!CLIENTS, BUT PEOPLE THAT HE DEALT WITH ON THE OUTSIDE, ITHINK, THIS COURT HAS RULED THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE TYPES OF CASES THESE TYPES OF CASES RESULT IN DISBARMENT THE REASON IS THAT VIOLATION OF THE TRUST,THE OTHER PROBLEM WE HAVE ISTHAT -- TO THE REFEREE, WHENBELIEVE BLOOM WAS -- FOR SUSPENSION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SUSPENSION, THAT HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF SOMEBODY THAT CANBE REHABILITATED AND COME BACK AND BE AN ASSET TO THE BAR, BUT THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT STORY IS THAT OKAY, IF MY ADICTION IS SEVERE ENOUGHI CAN DO ANYTHING I WANT I CAN -- ANY WAY I CAN STEAL AS MUCH MONEY AS I WANT TO DO BUT IF I AM SO HOPPED UP ON COCAINE$$!!THAT I CAN ARGUE THIS WAS NOT INTENTIONAL I'MONLY GOING TO LOSE MY LICENSE THREE YEARS -- I CANCOME BACK I DON'T THINK THATIS THE ATTITUDE THAT WE NEEDTO GIVE TO THE .
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION MR. TOZIAN?
--
THANK YOU I WILL GIVE YOUA EXCESSIVELY MINUTES.
I JUST -- REFERENCE THE COURT TO FACTORS -- ONGOING TO -- CFS LAWYER, WAS ALSO -- WORKED WITH MR. BLOOM, ONREGULAR BASIS, SAID IT BEHAVIOR WAS -- BIZARRE DURING THIS TIME, HE SAID XFL CASES -- A COUPLE OF CASES 12,000 DOLLAR SETTLEMENT 9,000 DOLLAR SETTLEMENT DURING SAME TIME LOSE EVERYTHING HE OWNED.
HE HAD A 20 YEAR ADICTION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ADICTION, CORRECT?
THAT IS WHAT THE RECORD!!$$!!!!!!!!!!RECORD --
IN 1987, AND I THINK THATHAYS -- SO WE DON'T REALLY KNOW IN THIS RECORD WHETHER THERE MAY HAVE BEEN OVER THEYEARS MULTIPLE HARM TO CLIENTS JUST NEVER DISCOVERED.
THERE IS NO INDICATION OFTHAT.
BUT -- BUT HE EVERYONE ALL THESE JUDGES THAT CAME AND SAID WHAT A GREAT GUY HEWAS WITHOUT KNOWING IT THEY WERE SAYING THIS GUY WHO IS A COCAINE ADDICT IS A GRATE GUY.OE A GREAT AWAY WSHT AWARE OF HIS WEREN'T AWARE OF HIS ADICKION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ADICKION.
THEY WERE AWARE AT THE TIME THEY GIVE THE OPINION BUT THEY WEREN'T OVER.
WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT A TWO YEAR ADICTION WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A 20 YEAR ADICTION THAT IS SOME REASON.
I AGREE WITH THAT.
DO I AGREE WITH THAT -- IDO AGREE WITH THAT.
WE THE LAST AS TO MR. WATSON HAD AS TO YOU KNOW, IF WE GO DOWN THE PATHTHAT IT IS JUST A SUSPENSION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SUSPENSION, HE SAYS THERE ISA THERE IS A REAL CONCERN THAT ANY TIME SOMEBODY JUST GOES OUT STEAL LIKE CRAZY, FROM YOUR CLIENTS, ALL YOU HAVE TO DO TO GET SMACKED ONTHE WRIST IS JUST PROFESS ASMUCH AS YOU CAN, AS MUCH ADICTION AS YOU CAN AND THATDOES HARM, AS I READ IT JUSTCLOSING COMMENT, WOULD YOU WOULD YOU ADDRESS THAT I MEAN THE -- THAT IS ALL LAWYER NEEDS TO DO NOW IS YOU ARE CAUGHT IN SOMETHING,AND YOU SAY OKAY, IT IS DRUGS SO YOU GET TREATSED DIFFERENTLY THAN IF YOU SAIDI GOT CAUGHT AND I DID IT.
I THINK THAT CONCERN IS WELL FOUNDED IF YOU LOOK AT HISTORY OF THE CASE IF YOU LOOK AT THE SHOE MANNER CASETHAT WAS DEFENSE HE USED -- HE DIDN'T FIRE 83-YEAR-OLD FATHER TO SAVE MONEY AND BUYDUGZ!!$$!!!!!!DUGZ, THAT IS THE POINT OF THIS CASE YOU HAVE THE CASE YOU HAVE CASES WHERE PEOPLE RAISE THAT ISSUE, BUT NOT TOTHE EXTENT THAT THIS RECORD SUPPORTS.THE NUMBER OF TWO WEEK RESIDENTIAL -- THIS MAN RECEIVED OVER THE YEARS, THIS ADICTION WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS KICKED UP,THIS IS -- I MEAN THERE IS REAL PROOF OF RESIDENCESHAL TREATMENT INADEQUATE TREATMENT BUT.
THE -- ISN'T THE DEGREE OF TREATMENT, DETERMINED BY THE PATIENT, REALLY?I MEAN YOU CAN OFFER, ALL SORTS OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF TREATMENT!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!TREATMENT, BUT OVER 20-YEAR PERIOD!!$$!!!!!!!!!!PERIOD, IN 95 HE WAS ON PROBATION WITH THE BAR I DON'T KNOW ALL ABOUT THAT WEHAVE HAD NUMEROUS FLORIDA BAR -- CONTRACTS, SO THERE WERE THERE WAS TIME, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THE WHOLE POINT IS IT WASN'T UNTIL HE HAD NOWHERE ELSE TOGO, THAT HE MADE THE CHOICE TO GO -- AND I THEY HAVE HAPPENS ALL THE I REALIZE THAT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME YOU ARE TALK OVER 20 YEARS HE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY AS MEASURING EARLIER TO SAY WAIT, THIS IS REALLY OUT OF HAND.I GOT TO ADMIT MYSELF I GOT TO TURN THE CORNER.
I AGREE, IFFIT A CHARACTER FLAFLAW OBSERVATION WOULD BE VALID THE A LOT OF ADDICTS -- THATIS --
THE PROBLEM IS WHERE DOESIT WHERE DOES IT NOT BECOME MORE THAN JUST THE ADICTION BUT THE ADICTION WITH THE CHARACTER FLAW?
THINK IN THIS CASE 30 YEARS DISTINGUISHED PRACTICEWITH NO INDICATION OF CHARACTER FLAW, YOU HAVE THETWO YEARS OF DOWNWARD SPIRALI THINK THAT IS THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION.
PART OF QUESTION, THOUGH AS I UNDERSTAND IT IS THAT DURING THESE AND FOR LACK OFBETTER WORD, LUCID MOMENTS IN WHICH HE IS HAVING A DISTINGUISHED CAREER, VERY EFFECTIVE!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!EFFECTIVELY REPRESENTING CLIENTS, AND HE IS PARTICIPATING IN THESE TWO WEEK PROGRAMS, WHICH WOULD IASSUME THAT THESE AT LEAST HAVING -- HE RECIDITY, DURING THAT, THAT WHY DID HENOT TAKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE OFF FOR A YEAR OR WHAT!!$$!!!!!!WHATEVER THE TIME WOULD TAKETO RID HIM OF THIS WHEN HE WAS IN A POSITION OF OBJECTIVELY LOOKING AT THE SITUATION THAT HE WAS IN?APPARENTLY HE NEVER NEVER MADE THAT CHOICE, TO SAY WELL EVEN THOUGH I'M GOING TO HAVE SACRIFICE INCOME, FOR A YEAR, OR WHATEVER, BUTHE WAS IN A POSITION TO DO IT.AND IN OTHER WORDS, HE WAS LUCID!!$$!!!!!!!!LUCID, HE WAS -- SO HOW DO WE FACTOR IN THE FACT THAT THIS IS -- AN OPPORTUNITY THERE IS, TO DO SOMETHING, ABOUT IT, THAT THE CHOICE MADE NOT TO DO IT?
THAT IS THE POWER OF ADICTION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ADICTION, COUPLED WITH THE TREATMENT!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!TREATMENT, AND THE OVERSIGHTWHICH IS WHAT HE NEEDED TO GET TO A POINT WHERE HE WOULDN'T WANT TO DO THAT.
BUT WHY DO YOU THINK -- OTHER THAN THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE CHARGES THAT HE IS FACING NOW THAT HE IS NOW MADE A CHOICE YOUR CONTENDING TO ACTUALLY CONFRONT IT SERIOUSLY?WHAT WAS MISSING BEFORE OTHER THAN THE THREAT OF HISLEGAL LICENSE?
HIS -- HIS HE HIT HIS BOTTOM IN THE -- VERNACULAR ADICTION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ADICTION, AND EVERYBODY ACCORDING TO THE EXPERTS, ISDIFFERENT.BUT, AGAIN, I JUST DON'T THINK YOU CAN -- HE HAS 30 YEARS TRACK RECORD YOU STILLHAVE -- STAGES, 60 YEARS OLDDISBARMENT IS PERMANENT --
WITH OUR ASSISTANCE YOU HAVE BASICALLY DOUBLED YOUR TIME VERY -- THANK YOU WE'LLTAKE THE CASE UNDER ADVISE!!$$!!!!!!!!!!ADVISEMENTS THE COURT WILL TAKE ITS MORNING RECESS.
ALL RISE.