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. Kristine Valentine-Miller

SC06-1629

 

>> NEXT CASE ON CALENDAR IS
THE FLORIDA BAR VERSUS
VALENTINE-MILLER.
>> MAY IT PLEASE THE
COURT --
>> THE -- AS OF A -- IN A
CASE WHERE WE HAVE TWO
INSTANCES OF CONDUCT, THAT
CALL FOR.
>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION ON
WHAT REFEREE ACTUALLY
REMEMBERED THREE YEARS --
RECOMMENDED THREE YEARS
INDEFINITE SUSPENSION UNTIL
REHABILITATED FULL
RESTITUTION THAT TO ME SO I
JUST USUALLY THE LONGEST
SUSPENSION CAN BE THREE
YEARS, SO BY -- SAYING, THAT
IT IS THREE YEARS PLUS
INDEFINITE SUSPENSION, UNTI
REHABILITATED, FULL
RESTITUTION ISN'T THAT
ALMOST THE FUNCTIONAL --
EQUIVALENT OF DISBARMENT OR
IS IS THAT EVEN DO YOU READ
THAT BEING WHAT THE REFEREE
SAID.
>> YES THE RULES AUTHORIZING
-- MORE THAN A -YEAR
SUSPENSION.
>> I DIDN'T SEE THAT AS --
AS THE BAR'S ARGUMENT,
THOUGH.
>> IT IS A POINT WELL TAKEN
HOWEVER.
THE -- BAR NOTING THAT THE
REFEREE RECOMMENDED THAT SHE
GET -- EVALUATION, OF --
MITIGATING FACTOR AND
REHABILITATION, WE -- SORT
OF GOES AROUND THAT AGAIN,
AND SAYS THAT CONFIRM ABOUT
-- AND HAD NOT BEEN
ADDRESSED LIKE, EVALUATION,
TO THAT.
-- [INAUDIBLE]
EVALUATION --
>> LET ME ASK IN A MORE
POINTED WAY, AS FAR AS THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
REFEREE, YOU ARE FAMILIARP
OBVIOUSLY WITH REFEREE'S
REPORT.
>> YES, SIR.
>> AND ON PAGE 17, OF THE
REFEREE'S REPORT, SEEMS TO
BE THE CRITICAL FINDING, OF
THE REFEREE.
AND LET ME READ THAT TO YOU,
THIS SORT OF CONCLUDING
PARAGRAPH, THE REFEREE SAYS
UPON CONSIDERATION OF ALL
THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY
BOTH PARTIES, THE REFEREE
FINDS THAT RESPONDENTS
CULPABILITY WAS DIMINISHED
DUE TO EVENTS BEGINNING IN
EARLY 2004, PARTICULARLY HER
SUBSTANCE ADDICTIONS, THE
REFEREE ALSO FINDS THAT
RESPONDENT'S CONVERSION OF
CLIENT FUNDS WAS NOT
WILLFUL, HER CONDUCT WAS
NEGLIGENT, RATHER THAN
INTENTIONAL, NOW IN BETWEEN
HE CITES CASES, AND BAR
STANDARDS, WHATEVER.
SEEMS TO ME THAT IS THE
HEART OF THE REFEREE'S
FINDING, IN DECIDING,
AGAINST RECOMMENDEDING
DISBARMENT IN FAVOR OF
RECOMMENDING SIMILARLY
SEVERE SANCTION OF -YEAR
SUSPENSION PLUS THE
CONDITIONS THAT THE JUSTICE
HAS REFERRED TO, SO TELL ME
HOW REFUTING THE
REFEREE'S CONCLUSIONS --
>> THREE CASES CRUCIAL TO
REFEREE'S CONCLUSION --
CULPABILITY, THIS CASE IS --
MORE RECENT --
>> AS OPPOSED TO CASES, I'M
CONCERNED THAT THESE THIS
THESE APPEAR TO BE, REALLY,
CREDIBILITY, AND FACTUAL
FINDINGS, OF THE TRIAL
COURT, WHEN YOU EVALUATE,
CULPABILITY, AND THE FACTORS
THAT WENT INTO THE CONDUCT
OF THE LAWYER AND THE
PROSECUTION, ISN'T IS THAT
WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?
AND WE OF COURSE DEFER TO
THE REFEREE, IN TERMS OF THE
EVALUATING CREDIBILITY, AND
FACTUAL FINDINGS, SO HOW CAN
WE GO BEHIND THESE FINDINGS,
THAT TALK ABOUT HER
SUBSTANCE ADDICTIONS,
BEGINNING OF THIS, SERIES
BEGINNING IN EARLY 2004, IF
I UNDERSTAND IT IN 2004 THIS
IS WHEN HER MOTHER PASSED
AWAY, AND ALSO, THAT SHE WAS
DIAGNOSED WITH A SERIOUS
CONDITION THAT SHE THOUGHT
WAS TERMINAL?
AND THAT THIS WAS ALL PART
OF SO HOW CAN WE GO BEHIND
THESE PARTICULAR FINDINGS?
>> I BELIEVE THAT THE WAY
THAT THE -- LOOKED AT,
DEMONSTRATE -- [INAUDIBLE]
THIS COURT -- AND DETERMINE
WHETHER OR NOT.
>> MAYBE LET ME ASK YOU A
DIFFERENT WAY, I ALWAYS
THOUGHT THOSE CASES
INVOLVING NEGLIGENCE WAS
JUST WHERE SOMEBODY WAS
SLOPPY IN THEIR TRUST
ACCOUNT, AND THEREFORE THERE
WAS SOMETIMES IT WAS OUT OF
BOUNDS, I THOUGHT HERE, THAT
AT LEAST, LET'S JUST TAKE
ONE CLIENT, THAT IS -- PHIL
ARDIZZONE, A 65,000 DOLLAR
SETTLEMENT DEPOSITED SHE
TOOK 21,000, DIDN'T GIVE
ANYTHING TO THE CLIENT,
NOW -- WHAT WAS PRESENTED ON
THAT, AT TRIAL?
IT IS HARD TO THINK THAT IS
-- PRODUCT OF NEGLIGENCE
THAT SEEMS INTENTIONAL EVEN
THOUGH WHETHER SOMEBODY WAS
ALWAYS UNDER THE INFLUENCE,
I MEAN DOESN'T GET AWAY FROM
THE FIRST-DEGREE MURDER OR
EVEN A DEATH CASE IF YOU ARE
YOU KNOW IN A CRIMINAL SIDE,
SO, COULD YOU JUST MAYBE
FOCUS TO ME I WOULD WAS
TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF
THERE WAS CLIENT HARM HERE,
OR JUST SLOPPY TRUST
ACCOUNT, OR AND THEN PLUS WE
HAVE ABANDONMENT MAYBE FOCUS
JUST ON THAT ONE ALLEGATION,
BECAUSE THAT IS PRETTY
SUBSTANTIAL.
>> -- WE -- TO -- AS -- WE
AFTER MENTIONED ARE --
NOTICED THAT ATTORNEY FEES,
THIS IS ALL ON RECORD.
>> WHAT OKAY SHE TOOK 21,000
AS ATTORNEY FEES, 1600 FOR
CAUSE WHAT HAPPENS TO THE
OTHER 40,000 WAS THAT CHECK
SHE ALSO WRITE CHECK FOR
40,000 ALSO TO HER SELF-?
>> NO SHE WAS LOOKING FOR --
>> IN THAT EVIDENCE -- --
ADVIING THAT 16 -- OF --
EXHIBIT -- CHECK TO HERSELF
IN LARGE AMOUNT.
>> THERE IS NO -- THERE IS
NO DISPUTE THAT SHE DID NOT
GIVE HER CLIENT WHO SHE
SETTLED THE PERSONAL INJURY
CASE FOR, ANY MONEY, FROM
THE SETTLEMENT?
>> -- DESPITE THE FACT --
>>; IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT AND THAT
IS THE DESPITE THE FACT THAT
-- REPRESENTED CLIENT --
ASKING HER FOR THE MONEY --
>> WHAT YOU ARE REALLY
SAYING CONCLUSION OF
NEGLIGENCE IS UNSUPPORTED BY
ANY OF THE FACTS THAT THE
REFEREE ALSO FOUND?
>> YES -- IT IS -- ON PAGE
77 OF THE RESPOND ENT,
KNOWLEDGE -- KNOWLEDGE, THAT
AS TO -- HER -- TAKE MONEY
OUT OF THE TRUST ACCOUNT AND
IF THAT SUPPORTS -- ATTORNEY
FEES --
>> WELL, DOESN'T SHE
ACTUALLY PLEAD -- FOR WANT
OF A BETTER WORD, OR ADMIT
THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE BAR'
COMPLAINT.
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> AND ONE OF THE
ALLEGATIONS, OR SEVERAL
ACTUALLY OF THE ALLEGATIONS
ACTUALLY HAVE HAVE TO DO
WITH THE FACT THAT SHE HELD
MONEY IN TRUST, AND DID NOT
DISTRIBUTE IT TO THE PEOPLE
THAT WERE INTENDEDED LIKE
THE MEDICAL PROVIDERS,
CORRECT.
>> THAT IS.
>> AND -- [INAUDIBLE]
>> SO MY QUESTION IS HOW DO
YOU NEGLIGENTLY DO THAT?
BACK TO YOU KNOW JUSTIFIES
ANSTEAD AND JUSTIFIES
PARIENTE'S QUESTION, THE
REFEREE SEEMS TO SAY THAT
WAS ALL NEGLIGENCE.
>> -- THE REFEREE, KEPT --
[INAUDIBLE]
COULD NOT -- KNOWLEDGE --
PRECEDENT, HAS BEEN -- SHE
SAYS OH, WOULD HAVE HAVE --
>> CAN I ASK -- I WANT TO
GET A PICTURE OF SOMETHING,
WE ONLY HAVE LINLTED TIME
HERE BUT IT IS TO ME VERY
IMPORTANT ABOUT HOW MUCH THE
EVENTS IN HER LIFE
INFLUENCED THE DOWNWARD
SPIRAL, SHE WAS ADMITTED IN
1997, WORKED AS ASSISTANT
PUBLIC DEFENDER UNTIL 99
COULDN'T HAVE HAD TRUST
ACCOUNT PROBLEMS THERE THEN
ASSOCIATE IN PERSONAL INJURY
FIRM LEFT DUE TO LACK OF
ORGANIZATION DID IT COME OUT
WHY SHE WHY THEY ASKED HER
TO LEAVE WAS THAT SHE --
EVEN THEN HAD A SUBSTANCE
ABUSE PROBLEM DO WE KNOW
THAT FROM THIS RECORD?
>> -- REPORT -- A SUBSTANCE
ABUSE PROBLEM AS EARLY AS
2000 --
>> OKAY SO ARE ANY OF THE
PROBLEMS SHE WORKED AND
SHARED SPACE WITH 2001 TO
2005 A A MOTHER DIED IN
2004, ARE ANY OF THE
PROBLEMS THAT CAN, IN
HER PRACTICE WHERE SHE WAS
ALONE FOR YOU KNOW, SHARED
SPACE DID IT OCCUR IN 01,
02, OR 03?
IF I HAD THE BAR
ESTABLISH --
>> -- 2004.
IN TERMS OF MITIGATION WHY
SHOULDN'T THE COURT CONSIDER
THAT REALLY ALTHOUGH SHE DID
HAVE A SUBSTANCE ABUSE
PROBLEM ALL ALONG, THAT THE
REAL PROBLEMS OCCURRED WHERE
SHE BARELY WAS FUNCTIONING,
AFTER HER MOTHER DIED, AND
THEN WHERE SHE WAS DIAGNOSED
WITH MELANOMA THOUGHT IT WAS
GOING TO BE FATAL?
>> --
>> OR IS THAT CORRECT WHAT?
>> THAT THAT IS WHEN IT ALL
STARTED?
.
>> -- THAT IS CORRECT THAT
THAT IS -- SHOWED -- THERE
WAS NO EVIDENCE -- PROBABLY
BEFORE THEN EXCEPT ASKED TO
LEAVE EARLIER OFFICE.
>> MUST -- MAKE SURE TRYING
TO GET THE DATE JUSTICE
PARENTS AYE IS TRYING TO DO
A POSITIVING PARIENTE IS
TRYING TO DO POSITION OF THE
BAR THE IMPROPRIETIES THAT
WERE DISCOVERED BEGAN ONLY
IN 2004 AND THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE OF ANY
IMPROPRIETIES PRIOR TO THAT
TIME?
>> EXCEPT THE FACT SHE WAS
ASKED TO LEAVE --
>> OKAY THAT WAS THE
QUESTION, SHE IS TRYING
DETERMINE, SO EVERYTHING IS
POST 2004.
>> THAT IS ABSOLUTELY --
>> WAS THE PERIOD BEFORE
2004 AUDITED?
>> NO, IT WAS NOT.
THE AUDIT BEGAN --
>> THERE IS A REASON FOR
THAT?
>> THE -- IS THERE A REASON
FOR THAT?
WAS THERE A REASON THAT THE
BAR DID NOT GO BACK BEFORE
2004?
>> NO --
>> THERE WERE NO COMPLAINTS
AGAINST HER BEFORE 2004?
>> NO -- THAT IS CORRECT --
-- COMPLAINTS STARTED --
JANUARY --
>> SO THEN, WHEN SHE LEFT IN
-- 2005, SHE WAS STILL
PRACTICING AND SO THAT IS
THE ISSUE SHE JUST ABANDON
WHAT DID SHE DO LEFT HER
OFFICE.
>> --
>> INTERESTING IS THAT SHE
DID NOT -- SHE DID WENT
TO --
>> WAS HER HUSBAND AT THAT
SAME PUBLIC DEFENDERS
OFFICE.
>> --
>> AND HER HUSBAND.
>> SHE O HE MINE TO ME THAT
IS SO SHE JUST LEFT HER
PRACTICE, AND THEN CONTINUED
TO PRACTICE IN THE PUBLIC
DEFENDERS OFFICE FOR HOW
LONG UNTIL SHE GOT THIS --
WAS SUSPENDED.
>> -- SIX MONTHS, STARTED IN
-- JUNE, DECEMBER, IT WAS --
WAS --
>> WAS THERE TESTIMONY HOW
SHE FUNCTIONED IN PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S OFFICE ABLE TO
FUNCTION THERE
>> PROFESSIONALLY
INCOMPETENT -- EACH OTHER --
COUNCIL -- BUT -- DIDN'T
THINK TOTALLY COMPETENT
DURING THAT PERIOD -- ALSO
GOING TO -- TO THE INTENT,
AND TO ISSUE CULPABILITY
THAT COURT'S LANGUAGE.
MUCH LIKE, IN THAT CASE,
WHERE RESPONDENT --
[INAUDIBLE]
AS THIS COURT, FOUND IN THAT
CASE -- -- THAT IS THAT
SITUATION HERE -- PERFORM --
IN EVIDENCE -- SEE LARGE --
CHECK AFTER CHECK, AND GOES
ON THROUGH FEBRUARY THE END
OF THE --
>> WHAT WAS SHE DOING WITH
THAT MONEY?
WAS SHE DID SHE USE IT TO
SUPPORT A LAVISH LIFESTYLE
USING IT TO SUPPORT DRUG
ADDICTION WHAT WAS MONEY
BEING USE SNOORD SHE DID
TESTIFY SHE WAS -- TESTIMONY
AS WHAT IT WAS USED FOR --
AND -- [INAUDIBLE]
.
>> DOES -- MONEY IN
OPERATING ACCOUNT?
>> THERE IS NO -- OF
THAT --.
>> SPEAK A LITTLE TO THE
NONCOOPERATION, WHAT
EVIDENCE IS THERE OF
NONCOOPERATION AFTER MATTERS
SURFACE COME TO ATTENTION OF
THE --
>> -- SEVERAL TIMES THAT SHE
DID -- COOPERATED -- FAILING
TO -- [INAUDIBLE]
>> WHAT WERE THOSE?
>> TRUST ACCOUNT RECORD.
>> YES.
>> FOR FLORIDA BAR TO --
SOME OF THE -- ISSUES THAT
ARE BEFORE THE COURT.
>> ESSENTIALLY IS THAT THE
INDIVIDUAL IN THIS CASE
REALLY DIDN'T EVEN MAINTAIN
A TRUST ACCOUNT OR RECORDS
ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE TRUST
ACCOUNT.
>> THAT IS -- INTERESTING
THAT -- LIMITED RECORD --
HOWEVER SHE IS NOT -- TO THE
-- AND JUST BRIEFLY -- -- AT
THE TIME, CONSIDERED --
EXTENSION, BY HAVING ACCOUNT
-- FLORIDABA,HH.
>> WAS THERE ANY EVIDENCE IN
THIS RECORD I KNOW THAT
AFTER SHE LEFT THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S OFFICE, SHE WENT
TO WORK FOR PERSONALINJURY
FIRM WAS BASICALLY ASKED TO
LEAVE THAT FIRM?
>> THAT IS CORRECT -- LACK
OF ORGANIZATION.
>> WAS THERE ANY RECORD
EVIDENCE OF CONCERNING
WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS
SOME DRUG PROBLEMS AT THAT
POINT?
>> SHE WAS ASKED TO LEAVE
THERE IN ABOUT 99, AND AT
WHICH THEE SHE FILED THAT IS
-- HER -- -- AROUND THAT
TIME.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT
I'M -- I REPRESENTATIVE
KRISTINE VALENTINE-MILLER,
TO MY RIGHT AT COUNSEL
TABLE.
>> WHY DON'T WE SORT OF
START WITH THE WHOLE NOTION
OF THE FINDING THAT JUSTICE
ANSTEAD POINTED TO
CONCERNING HER BEING
NEGLIGENT, AS OPPOSED TO
WILLFUL, IN THESE TRUSTS
ACCOUNT MATTERS HOW DO YOU
NEGLIGENTLY NOT PAY SOMEONE
FROM A SETTLEMENT, WHEN THAT
PERSON CONTINUES TO ASK YOU
FOR THEIR MONEY?
>> -- RECORD SUPPORTS THES
FINDINGS, THAT -- JUSTICE
ASKED ABOUT.
>> -- FIRST COMPLAINT, IS
NOT SO CLEAR AS THE BAR
SUGGESTION, SUGGESTS, MONEY
COMES IN SHE TAKES FEES THE
REST IS HELD -- NEGOTIATION,
MEDICAL PROBLEMS WINDING
DOWN PRACTICE A, GOING TO
WORK FOR PUBLIC DEF --
DEFENDER'S OFFICE HANDFUL O
CLIENTS, NOT CLEAR
ABANDONMENT SHE DOES --
EMPLOYEE -- SUPERVISION.
>> ONE OF THE THINGS, IS
THAT THERE WERE TWO MEDICAL
PERSONS THAT DID NOT GET
PAID OFF, THOUGH, THERE WERE
TWO MEDICAL PEOPLE AND THE
CLIENT HIPS, WHO NEVER --
HIMSELF NEVER GOT ANY
PAYMENT.
>> JUSTICE QUINCE THERE IS
58 -- ALL THAT IS LEFT IN
TRUST ACCOUNT ALL CANDOR, IF
THEY COMPLETE -- PROBABLY
ARE MORE THAN TWO MEDICAL
PROVIDERS UNPAID --
>> DID THE BAR -- ALLEGE
THAT THIS WAS AN INTENTIONAL
MISAPPROPRIATION?
>> THE BAR HE ALLEGED --
VIOLATION I DO I NOT RECALL
IF THE WORD INTENT WAS USED
THERE IS THE -- THAT CASES
TURN BASICALLY TALK ABOUT
INTENT THEY TALK ABOUT
DELIBERATE KNOWING
CALCULATION -- THE RECORD
DOES NOT SUGGEST RECORD DOES
NOT SUPPORT THOSE THINGS,
AND THE COURT --
>> BUT THE PROBLEM IS THAT
-- THE RESPONDENT CAME IN
AND ADMITTED THE BAR'S
ALLEGATION.
>> WOULD I LIKE TO SPEAK TO
THAT -- THIS CASE IN THE
FUTURE -- THE LAST FEW YEARS
COURT HAS COME OUT WITH
OPINIONS THAT CLARIFY THAT
IF YOU ARE SLOPPY ENOUGH
TRUST ACCOUNT, IT IS A --
VIOLATION, IT RISES TO LEVEL
OF DISHONESTY IF YOU ARE
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL IN A
BAR CASE OR IF YOU REPRESENT
AN APPLICANT BEFORE THE
BOARD BAR EXAMINERS THE
DILEMMA YOU ARE FACING YOU
FALL ON SWORD MEA CULPA TRY
TO DEMONSTRATE CHARACTER OR
DO YOU GO TO FIGHT ABOUT
SMALL ISSUES ABOUT, WHAT I
WAS.
>> BUT THE PROBLEM BUT --
THE PROBLEM I HAVE, IS THAT
SINCE -- THIS COURT HAS
INCREASINGLY BEEN CLEAR
THAT IF THERE IS A
MISAPPPROPRIATION, A TAKING
OF MONEY FROM A TRUST
ACCOUNT, THAT IS
INTENTIONAL, THAT IS NOT
SOMETHING THAT IS A
BOOKKEEPING TYPE OF ERROR,
THAT THE PRESUMPTION OF
DISBARMENT, WILL BE
ENFORCED?
AND SO THAT -- THAT WAS
CLEARLY OUT THERE, AT THE
TIME THAT THIS CASE WAS
COMING ALONG.
>> I STILL BELIEVE THERE IS
THIS DISTINCTION BETWEEN INTENT
AS A MATTER OF LAW AS YOU HAVE
ESTABLISHED THROUGH THE RECENT
OPINIONS AND THEN THE INTENT,
THE MEN'S RAYA NECESSARY TO
KICK IT OVER TO A DISBARMENT
CASE.
>> BUT THIS IS WHERE I HAVE --
AND I, ESPECIALLY WITH YOUR
CLIENT HERE, YOU KNOW THIS IS
A, IT'S A TRAGEDY ALL AROUND.
AND COURT IS VERY UNDERSTANDING
OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND WHAT IT
CAN DO TO LIVES.
BUT WE'VE GOT A RESPONSIBILITY
TO THE CITIZENS OF THIS
STATE, AND OFTEN TIMES WE RUN
INTO THIS WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT
WHETHER WE ARE GOING TO ADMIT
PEOPLE CONDITIONALLY TO GO, YOU
KNOW, WE CANNOT, ALTHOUGH WE'RE
SYMPATHETIC TO, YOU KNOW,
SOMEONE WITH SUBSTANCE ABUSE,
WE, WE'VE GOT TO BE VERY
CAREFUL THAT THERE IS NOT ANY
TRIGGER THAT MIGHT UNDER STRESS
CAUSE THIS TO OCCUR.
MY CONCERN IS THAT I SEE
THIS AS THAT OVER A TWO-YEAR
PERIOD, FROM 2004, 2005,
ESSENTIALLY WE HAVE A PICTURE
OF SOMEBODY THAT AT SOME POINT,
ONE DAY SHOULD HAVE RECOGNIZED
WITHIN THAT TWO-YEAR PERIOD
THAT I'M GOING TO INTO A
DOWNWARD SPIRAL.
YOU KNOW, HER HUSBAND SAW IT.
AND WE'VE GOT -- I'VE GOT TO --
I'VE GOT TO STOP MYSELF.
I'VE GOT TO GET SOMEONE INTO MY
PRACTICE THAT CAN HELP ME OUT.

IT'S NOT AS IF IT HAPPENED ON
ONE DAY.
ALTHOUGH AS I -- SPEAK TO THAT.

HOW DO WE WHEN WE TAKE
SOMETHING THAT'S OVER A
TWO-YEAR PERIOD AS ESSENTIALLY
AS NEGLECTING CLIENTS, NOT
ESSENTIALLY KEEPING A TRUST
ACCOUNT AND THEN ACTUALLY
TAKING CLIENTS' MONEY AND THEN
ABANDONING THAT PRACTICE.
I MEAN, I THINK IT WOULD --, IF
SOMEHOW SHE HAD CHECKED HERSELF
IN AT THE END OF THE 2005 AND
THEN LEFT AND GOES TO THE
PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE UNTIL
THE BAR ASKED FOR IMMEDIATE
SUSPENSION.
AS SYMPATHETIC AS I AM TO ALL
THESE THINGS, I DON'T SEE HOW
THE, YOUR, THE MITIGATION IN
THIS CASE OVERCOMES THE
PRESUMPTION OF DISBARMENT.
>> I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT IN
A COUPLE OF WAYS.
NINETY-FIRST, AND
MS.^WICHROWSKI --
>> EACH COMES TO -- GIVE ME
THIS CASE, WHAT'S YOUR MOST
COMPELLING THING THAT THIS
LOOKS LIKE SOMEBODY THAT REALLY
WASN'T, YOU KNOW, THAT DIDN'T
KNOW SHE WAS TAKING MONEY FROM
HER CLIENTS WHEN SHE, AND, AND
WHEN THE CLIENT KEEPS ON
CALLING,
WHERE'S MY MONEY, WHAT IS IT
THAT WE CAN -- YOU CAN GIVE ME
THAT SHOWS THAT OVER A TWO-YEAR
PERIOD SOMEONE DURING ONE DAY
OF THAT TWO YEARS, YOU KNOW,
WHO'S AN ADULT PERSON WHO'S,
YOU KNOW, ISN'T DOING THESE
THINGS INTENTIONALLY, NOT,
SHE'S A BAD PERSON.
BUT THAT SHE UNFORTUNATELY,
SHOULD'VE RECOGNIZED HER OWN
FAILINGS AND DONE SOMETHING TO
STOP THIS BEFORE THE BAR HAD TO
STOP IT.
>> SHE DID RECOGNIZE HER OWN
FAILINGS, AND THAT'S WHY SHE
STARTED, SHE STOPPED TAKING NEW
CLIENTS.
>> WHEN DID SHE STOP TAKING.
>> SHE STARTED TAKE TO WIND
DOWN.
>> IN LATE 2005.
>> SHE DIDN'T ABANDON HER
CLIENTS.
>> WE DISPUTE THAT.
SHE DID NOT PROVIDE
ADEQUATE SUPERVISION TO AN
EMPLOYEE.
>> AND THAT WAS RIGHT.
THAT'S WHERE THE 25,000 WAS
TAKEN OVER WHATEVER IT WAS.
>> TWO DIFFERENT INSTANCES.
>> LET'S FORGET THE AD--
ADEQUATE SUPERVISION BECAUSE I
DON'T THINK THAT ONE WOULD BE
DISBARMENT.
>> OBJECTIVE.
OBJECTIVE MITIGATION.
YOU SEE CASES WHERE IT'S JUST
DEPRESSION OR AN ADDICTION,
MOTHER DYING, THINKING SHE WAS
GOING TO DIE FROM MELANOMA, THE
EMPLOYEE THEFT DURING THE TIME
SHE WAS DEALING WITH THE
MELANOMA.
WE HAVE OBJECTIVE SIGNIFICANT
FACTORS GOING ON, AND WHEN SHE
REALIZED THAT, THAT SHE WAS NOT
ABLE TO ADEQUATELY OPERATE IN
PRIVATE PRACTICE, THE TESTIMONY
BELOW WAS AT LEAST IF I WENT TO
THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE, I
KNEW I'D HAVE TO BE SOBER DAY
IN, DAY OUT.
>> DID SHE REACH OUT TO FLYING.

>> SHE DINT IN TIME.
SHE DID NOT UNTIL THE BAR
CONTACTED HER.
>> THAT'S UNDENIABLE.
>> AND WAS THERE SOMETHING IN
THE RECORD ABOUT, ABOUT THE
FLYING, REACHING OUT, WHETHER
SHE IS AWARE OF FLANK OR?
>> INITIALLY SHE WAS IN DENIAL
TO THE WORLD WAND THERE'S THIS
LETTER IN THE RECORD THAT I
WROTE WHERE AT THAT TIME, SHE
DIDN'T THINK SHE HAD THAT, A
BIG PROBLEM.
EITHER WITH SUBSTANCE OR
ALCOHOL ABUSE, OR WITH HER
TRUST ACCOUNT.
AND THEN THE BAR GETS THE BANK
RECORDS AND ALL THE SUDDEN,
IT'S A PROBLEM.
SHE QUITS CALLING ME.
I THREATEN TO WITHDRAW.
THAT'S IN THE RECORD.
SOMEBODY GETS HER INTO
TREATMENT.
THEY THINK SHE'S GOING INTO
30-DAY TREATMENT.
THEY KEEP HER FOR 90 DAYS.
SHE GETS IN, THINK THEY ARE
GOING TO KEEP HER FOR A MONTH.

THERE WAS AN ALLEGATION OF
NONCOOPERATION.
SHE GETS BACK OUT AND SITS FOR
HER DEPOSITION TO THE BAR
WITHIN SEVERAL DAYS OF BEING
OUT.
SHE, SHE COOPERATED TO THE MOST
OF HER ABILITY.
>> WELL LET ME -- HELP ME WITH
THE TIME FRAME.
WHEN DID THE MONEY,
WHEN WAS IT RECEIVED?
>> YOUR HONOR, I DON'T KNOW THE
ANSWER TO IT.
I'M SORRY.
THAT SPECIFIC ANSWER I DON'T
KNOW.
SOMETIME PROBABLY IN 2005 IS
THE ONLY WINDOW I CAN TELL YOU.

>> WHAT, QUESTION ON THE
REFEREES SANCTION.
WASN'T JUST A THREE YEAR
SUSPENSION.
IT IS SUSPENSION UNTIL SHE IS
REHABILITATED AND PAYS BACK ALL
THE MONEY, AND YOU HAVEN'T
FOUGHT THAT.
BUT AS THE BAR, ALTHOUGH THEY
HAVEN'T RAISED IT, WE HAVE AN
OBLIGATION TO LOOK AT IT, HOW
IS THAT A LEGAL SUSPENSION?
I MEAN, ISN'T THAT ESSENTIALLY
THAT THE, HE HAD NO CHOICE OR
SHE -- THEN IS DISBARRED THIS
PERSON.
>> IT'S REALLY A REDUNDANCY
BECAUSE AS A PRACTICAL MATTER
IF SHE'S NOT REHABILITATED,
SHE'S NOT COMING BACK AFTER
THREE YEARS BUT IF I COULD HAVE
ABOUT A MOMENT TO SUGGEST TO
THE COURT WHY IT CONTINUES TO,
TO STRUGGLE WITH THESE THINGS
AS DO REFEREES, THE PROBLEM
THAT THE COURT HAS IS, IS
PERHAPS NOT THE RIGHT CARROT
STICK BALANCE AS IT'S
COMMUNICATED TO REFEREES.
REFEREES MANY TIMES RECOMMEND A
THREE-YEAR SUSPENSION THINKING
READMISSION TO THE BAR IS GOING
TO BE GOOD ENOUGH OA CARROT TO
REINTRODUCE THEM TO THE BAR.
THERE'S NOT A REAL STICK OUT
THERE FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T LIKE
PRACTICING LAW THAT MUCH AND
THEY SHOULD BE DISBARRED IF
THEY ARE NOT GOING TO
REHABILITATE.
THE REFEREES HAS THE ABILITY,
THIS COURT HAS THE ABILITY WHEN
THEY IMPOSE A THREE-YEAR
SUSPENSION TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS
THAT HAVE TO BE COMPLIED WITH
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU APPLY
AND THE BAR DOES FROM TIME TO
TIME BRING CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS
WHEN SOMEONE DOESN'T DO
ANYTHING WHEN THEY --
>> YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT
CONDITIONS DURING THE
THREE-YEAR SUSPENSION.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
>> NOT AFTER.
>> SO WHERE EVERYONE IS LEFT IS
TRYING TO GET INSIDE THE MIND
OF A RESPONDENT.
WHERE'S THE CHARACTER.
>> ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT BAR
WOULD INVEST ITS TIME AND EFFORT
TO MONITOR SOMEBODY DURING THE
THREE YEARS TO MAKE SURE THEY
ARE ON THE PATH TO
REHABILITATION.
ISN'T THAT -- IT'S HARD ENOUGH
FOR THE BAR.
>> IT'S NOT THE
HARD.
THAT'S THE WAY THEY DO
COMMITTEES THEY PAY A
MONITORING FEE TO HELP
COMPENSATE THE BAR AND IT'S NOT
REALLY A BIG REACH TO SAY IF WE
ARE NOT SURE GIVE THE PERSON A
THREE-YEAR CARROT AND WE ARE
GOING TO PUT THE STICK OUT
THERE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU
ARE GOING TO COME BACK.
I WOULD SUGGEST TO THE COURT
THAT THAT TAKES AWAY SOME OF
THE MYSTERY LIKE THE PEOPLE IN
MISSOURI WOULD SAY SHOW ME,
TELL ME WHAT -- DON'T JUST TELL
ME WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO TO
GET BACK IN, SHOW ME DURING
THAT THREE-YEAR SUSPENSION, AND
IT -- IF IT DOESN'T HAPPEN
THE BAR IS RIGHT PERHAPS THE
PERSON SHOULD'VE BEEN DISBARRED
IN THE FIRST PLACE.
THEY HAVE A CONTEMPT PROCEEDING
AND IT ENDS THE PERSON'S
LICENSE IN THAT MANNER BUT
WHERE WE ARE NOW IS, IS TRYING
TO PUT ON CASES TO A REFEREE
SAYING THIS PERSON IS REALLY A
FINE PERSON, THEY HAD ALL THESE
MITIGATING FACTORS GOING ON,
AND, VERY SUBJECTIVE
DETERMINATION WITHOUT REALLY
KNOWING.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN,
COULD, COULD SWALLOW THAT ONE.

I MEAN, IS IT UP ON THE
SUSPENSION ARE RULES -- OUR
RULES PROVIDE THAT YOU MUST
SHOW REHABILITATION BEFORE
BEING ADMITTED.
>> SURE.
>> AND THAT MEANS YOU CURE YOUR
PROBLEMS THAT YOU HAD BEFORE,
AND THEN SHOW REHABILITATION
AND WE HAVE, THERE'S GUIDANCE
OUT THERE ABOUT THE THINGS YOU
DO IN THE COMMUNITY AND
RELIGIONS AND IN SCHOOLS AND
COMMUNITIES, I MEAN, ACROSS THE
BOARD.
>> AND ASS A RESPONDENT'S
COUNCIL, I AGREE WITH YOU 100%
AND I WOULD SUGGEST THOSE LET
ATTORNEYS IF THERE'S A GREAT
AREA HAVE THAT THREE-YEAR
SUSPENSION, BUT THE BAR IS,
BEFORE THE COURT ON A REGULAR
BASIS, SAYING IT NEEDS TO BE
MORE THAN THAT.
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW
MANY BAR CASES COME THROUGH
THIS COURT?
>> A LOT.
>> WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ADD
FOUR NEW EMPLOYEES TO DO
WHAT YOU ARE ASKING TO DO.
>> AND WHAT I SUGGEST TO THE
COURT IS THAT THIS TAKES THE
PETITIONS WHO ARE REVIEWED TO
DOWN TO A MINIMAL NUMBER
BECAUSE THEY WILL PROVE
THEMSELVES ON SUSPICION THEY
ARE GOING TO LIVE OR DIE BASED
ON --
>> BUT IF SOMEBODY AFTER THREE
YEARS REPETITIONS FOR
REINSTATEMENT AND THEY SAY
STARTING ON THE DAY AFTER I WAS
SUSPEND I'D STARTED DOING
PUBLIC SERVICE, I STARTED --
THEY AIN'T GETTING IN.
AS YOU KNOW, SO IF THEY AREN'T
DOING SOMETHING DURING THEIR
PERIOD OF SUSPENSION, AND BAR,
AND RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL AREN'T
TELLING THEM THEY BETTER
START ON DAY 1 IF THEY WANT TO
GET BACK IN, THEN THERE'S
SERIOUSLY WRONG WITH COUNSEL
THAT IS ADVISING THEIR CLIENTS
ABOUT HOW REINSTATEMENT WORKS
BUT WHAT HERE IS THE PROBLEM,
AND MAYBE I'M -- IS THAT I'M
STILL ASKED YOU, CAN THEY
IMPOSE WHAT THEY DID AS SHE
CAN'T EVEN, AS I UNDERSTAND
TO APPLY FOR REINSTATEMENT UNTIL
SHE SHOWS REHABILITATION, NOW
YOU ARE SAYING WELL THEY WOULD
HAVE TO DO THAT ANYWAY BUT THAT
SEEMED TO ME TO BE SOMETHING
THAT IS BEYOND WHAT THE RULES
CONTEMPLATE THAT A BAR REFEREE
COULD DO.
IN A SENSE.
>> IT WAS UNUSUAL.
I SAW IT AS, AS A REDUNDANCY AS
JUSTICE LEWIS SAID THAT THE YOU
ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DO ALL
THIS ANYWAY.
I GUESS MY POINT IS THAT THE BAR
IN A CERTAIN NUMBER OF CASES IS
SAYING THREE YEARS IS CERTAINLY
NOT SUFFICIENT AND WE DON'T
KNOW THAT SORTING THROUGH PILES
OF RECORDS AND HEARING
TESTIMONY, THIS PERSON'S GOOD,
THIS PERSON'S BAD.
IF THERE WERE AN ALTERNATIVE
MECHANISM TO SAY DO THESE
THINGS AND IF YOU DON'T DO
THEM, YOU ARE IN CONTEMPT, THE
BAR CAN SIT BACK AND SAY WE
DON'T NEED TO DISBAR YOU IF YOU
DO IT RIGHT.
>> LET ME ASK THIS LEADING
QUESTION HERE.
>> YES, SIR.
>> WOULD YOU EXPLAIN TO THE
COURT WHY BASED UPON THE
TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES
WITH YOUR CLIENT THAT THOSE
FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES
DEMONSTRATE THAT SUSPENSION IS
THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY AND NOT
A DISBARMENT AND LIST WHAT
THEY ARE AND HOW THEY IMPACTED
HER FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
COURT.
>> THE FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES
WERE DUE TO HER ALCOHOLISM AND
PRESCRIPTION DRUG DEPENDENCY AS
OPPOSED TO ILLEGAL DRUGS.
>> HOW SEVERE?
HOW SEVERE?
>> HOW -- MEDIUM, MODERATELY
SEVERE, SEVERE, SHE HAD MEDICAL
ISSUES PREDATING THE MELANOMA
SURGERY.
YOU KNOW, THE MITIGATING
FACTORS AND LOOKING AT WHAT HER
RECORDS LOOKED LIKE, THE FACT
THAT IS KEY TO DISTINGUISH THE
OTHER CASES IS THE AUDITOR
TESTIFIED BELOW THERE WAS NO
EVIDENCE SHE WAS TRYING TO
COVER TRACKS.
THERE WAS NO TRYING TO PUT
MONEY BACK IN, FUDGE, ANYTHING
ELSE.
SHE JUST DIDN'T KNOW.
SHE DIDN'T HAVE THE DELIBERATE
AND KNOWING MINDSET THAT THE
COURT SEES THAT THE COURT SEEMS
TO IDENTIFY IN THE DISBARMENT
CASES.
>> THIS IS ONLY BECAUSE THERE'S
NO COVER-UP, NO ATTEMPTS TO
COVER YOUR TRACKS?
>> THERE'S JUST NO EVIDENCE
THAT SHE WAS DOING IT ON
PURPOSE.
SHE HAD THIS PART-TIME
EMPLOYEE.
SHE STILL HAD SOME OVERHEAD SHE
WAS TRYING TO COVER.
SHE DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER SHE HAD
ENOUGH MONEY, AND THE EVIDENCE
WAS SHE WOULD TAKE OUT LITTLE
BITS OF MONEY THINKING I'M NOT
QUITE THERE YET, AND SHE
ADMITTED TO THE BAR, YEAH, I
KNEW NAT I WAS GETTING CLOSE TO
DIPPING INTO CLIENT FUNDS.
WELL, SHE HAD MISGAUGED THAT.
BUT THAT'S THE CLOSEST THE
EVIDENCE CAME TO SHOWING SHE
KNEW THAT SHE WAS MISUSING
CLIENT FUNDS.
IT WAS TAKING MONEY OUT IN
LITTLE PIECES.
I KNEW I WAS GETTING CLOSE, AND
--
>> WE SUBMIT THAT DOESN'T CROSS
THE BAR.
>> WHEN THE PI CLIENT STARTED
ASKING WHERE'S MY SHARE OF THE
PROCEEDS, IT SEEMS LIKE THE
LIGHT SHOULD'VE COME ON VERY
CLEARLY THERE WHEN SHE HAD
TAKEN HER FEES, THE DOCTORS
HADN'T BEEN PAID AND HER CLIENT
SAID WHERE'S MY SHARE, WHY
ISN'T THE LIGHT JUST BLARING?
>>> THE LIGHTS CAME ON BUT HER
RECORDS WERE IN SUCH DISARRAY
AT THAT POINT SHE DID NOT HAVE
WHAT IT TOOK TO GET IT RIGHT
AND FIGURE OUT WHO GOT WHAT.
>> SO FROM THAT POINT FORWARD,
SHE TOOK NO MORE FEES?
>> TO MY BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
SHE TOOK MORE NOR MORE FEES NO
MORE CLIENTS WHEN YOU SAY TAKE
MORE FEES, FOR HERSELF DID SHE
TAKE MORE FEES?
>> YES.
WHEN SHE GOT NOTIFIED FROM HER
CLIENT, I HAVEN'T GOTTEN MY
SHARE OF THE PROCEEDS, SHE'S
GOTTEN HER SHARE, ONCE SHE KNEW
THAT, DID SHE TAKE ANY INCOME
FROM HER PRACTICE?
>> THAT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE
RECORD.
THAT WAS NOT BROUGHT OUT, AND I
WOULD SUBMIT BASED ON THE
RECORD BELOW AND WHAT SHE
PROVIDED, SHE DIDN'T KNOW THE
ANSWER TO THAT UNTIL THE
FLORIDA BAR AUDITOR MADE SOME
SEMBLANCE OF ORDER OR THEY
DIDN'T KNOW.
>> AND DIDN'T THE AUDIT SHOW
THAT SHE CONTINUED TO TAKE
MONEY OUT?
>> SHE DID OVER A PERIOD OF
TIME.
>> THAT'S WHAT JUSTICE BELL IS
ASKING.
>> I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO
THAT.
>> SO IT'S OKAY THAT YOU CAN
JUST SIT THERE AND SAY WELL, I
DON'T IS KNOW AND SO I'M JUST
GOING TO LET IT GO AND NOT
DOING ANYTHING?
THAT'S FINE?
THAT'S MITIGATION?
SO CERTAINLY IT'S NOT FINE OR
OKAY WHICH IS WHY SHE HAS A
THREE-YEAR SUSPENSION.
>> WITH OUR ASSISTANCE, IF YOU
WANT TO JUST WRAP YOUR ARGUMENT
UP, YOUR HONOR, IF NO MORE
QUESTIONS, THAT IS ALL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR
TIME AND CONSIDERATION THIS
MORNING.
>> YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY TO THE
END OF YOURS, SO I'LL GIVE YOU
A MINUTE OR TWO TO JUST, TO
JUST PLEASE HIT YOUR HIGH
POINTS.
>> THANK YOU.
JUST BRIEFLY, THE QUESTION WAS
ASKED WHEN MR.^ARDIZZONE'S
INSURANCE MONEY FROM HIS
SETTLEMENT WAS DEPOSITED, IT
WAS DEPOSITED IN MAY 2005.
SHE CONTINUED TO WRITE CHECKS
FROM THE ACCOUNT, THE MAJORITY
TO HERSELF UNTIL THE
CONCLUSION OF THE BAR'S AUDIT
FEBRUARY OF 2006.
AT HER DEPOSITION SHORTLY
BEFORE THE FINAL HEARING, THE
BAR ASKED HER TO PROVIDE HER
MOST RECENT BANK RECORDS SO WE
COULD SEE WHAT HAPPENED UP
UNTIL THE TIME OF THE EMERGENCY
SUSPENSION.
SHE AGREED TO PROVIDE THEM BUT
SHE HOWEVER NEVER DID.
>> SO FROM THAT ACCOUNT MORE
WAS TAKEN OTHER THAN THE
$21,000 FEE AND THE COSTS THAT
THERE WERE MONIES BEYOND THOSE
THAT WERE TAKEN OUT OF THE THAT
MONEY?
>> AS THE AUDITOR'S REPORT
REFLECTS, THAT IS CORRECT.
CHECK AFTER CHECK TO HERSELF,
$5,000, $2,000, $1,000.
>> LET ME MAKE SURE I
UNDERSTAND THIS.
YOUR STATEMENT IS THAT AFTER
THIS ALL OCCURRED, AND YOU
TRIED TO GET THE RECORDS, THAT
EVEN UP AT THE LAST DEPOSITION,
JUST BEFORE THE HEARING, THERE
WAS AN ACCOUNT OPEN BUT THEY
REFUSED TO, TO PROVIDE THE
INFORMATION FROM THOSE
ACCOUNTS?
>> NO, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE
TRUST ACCOUNT, WHAT HAD
HAPPENED TO IT BEFORE IT HAD
GOTTEN FROZE BY THE BAR'S
EMERGENCY SUSPENSION OR THAT
ONE TRUST ACCOUNT.
>> WELL NOTHING HAPPENED TO IT
AFTER THAT?
>> WE -- THAT'S TRUE BUT WE
JUST WANTED TO KNOW, WAS THERE
STILL 50,000 -- $58,000 IN
THERE AS THERE WAS AT THE END
OF THE {R} OF FEBRUARY?
HAD SHE CONTINUED TO TAKE THE
MONEY SOME.
>> HOW DID THE NUMBERS
COME OUT AT THE END OF THE
AUDIT -- THE TRUST ACCOUNT.
>> EXACTLY.
>> LET ME FINISH.
HOW DID THE NUMBERS COME OUT AS
TO THE, WHAT FUNDS WERE IN THE
TRUST ACCOUNT AND AVAILABLE TO
BE PAID TO CLIENTS AND THEN
COMPARED TO HOW MUCH THE
CLIENTS WERE OWED, IN OTHER
WORDS, CAN YOU GIVE US WAS
THERE $10,000 IN THE TRUST
ACCOUNT BUT SHE OWED $60,000 TO
THE CLIENT?
OR WAS THERE $60,000 IN THE
TRUST ACCOUNT AND SHE ONLY OWED
50,000 OR WHAT WAS IT?
TELL US WHAT --
>> AT THE END OF THE FEBRUARY
AUDIT PERIOD IN 2006, SHE HAD
$58,000 IN THE TRUST ACCOUNT.
>> AND HOW MUCH --
>> HOWEVER, SHE HAD BETWEEN
80,000 AND $110,000 OF CLIENT
OBLIGATION, SO SHE SHOULD'VE
HAD BETWEEN 88,000, $110,000 IN
HER TRUST ACCOUNT.
>> WITH OUR ASSISTANCE, YOU
HAVE EXHAUSTED ALL OF YOUR
TIME.
WE THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR
PRESENTATIONS, BOTH SIDES.
WE'LL TAKE THE CASE UNDER
ADVISEMENT AND THE COURT WILL
TAKE ITS MORNING RECESS.