YES. I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS IN THE CASE. THE FACTS THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU ARE UNDISPUTED IN TERMS OF THE FACTS. THE FLORIDA BAR BRING THIS IS CASE ON THE QUESTION OF DISCIPLINE. THE REFEREE RECOMMEND ADD 90-DAY SUSPENSION. -- RECOMMENDED A 90-DAY SUSPENSION. ON SEPTEMBER 5, 1998, THE RESPONDENT SAW THE UNCLE DIE TESTATE. HE PREPARED THE WILL, EVEN THOUGH HE WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE FLORIDA BAR. HE WAS NAMED AN EXECUTOR IN THAT WILL. AFTER THE UNCLE'S DEATH, HE FILED THE NECESSARY PLEADINGS TO PROBATE THE ESTATE AND WAS NAMED THE EXECUTOR FOR THE ESTATE. THE FOLLOWING YEAR, IN 1989, RESPONDENT BEGAN TO MISAPPROPRIATE MONIES FROM THE ESTATE. HE CONTINUED TO DO THAT IN 1990 AND, ALSO, IN 1991. AND DURING THAT TIME PERIOD, HE CONVERTED $123,750 TO HIS OWN PERSONAL USES. IN ADDITION TO THAT, HE TOOK FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $7 NLT 611 -- IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,611 AND HE ALSO TOOK DISTRIBUTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF THE OTHER BENEFICIARIES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,054. AFTER HE MISAPPROPRIATED THESE FUNDS, THE CLIENT MADE ATTEMPTS TO CONCEAL THE MISREPRESENTATION TO SAY THE CLIENTS. IN LATE 1995, THE CLIENT WAS CONFRONTED WITH A BRIBE FROM HIS SON. HIS SON DEMAND $7,000 OR HE WOULD REPORT THE CLIENT TO THE FLORIDA BAR. HE GAVE IN TO THE SON AND PAID HIM $7,000. ALSO, ON SEPTEMBER 22, 1994, THE RESPONDENT SENT A MEMORANDUM TO THE FISHIARIES OF THE ESTATE AND ADVISED THEM OF A PURPORTED FINAL ACCOUNTING, AND THE PURPORTED FINAL ACCOUNTING SIGNED BY THE RESPONDENT, INDICATED THAT THERE WAS APPROXIMATELY $15,000 LEFT IN THE ESTATE, WHEN, IN FACT, THERE WAS ONLY A FEW THOUSAND DOLLARS. THE RESPONDENT MADE THIS MISREPRESENTATION IN ORDER TO CONCEAL THE THEFT FROM THE BENEFICIARIES. HE WAS REMOVED FROM THE ESTATE AND THE SUCCESSOR EXECUTOR WAS APPOINTED BY THE STATE AND THE SUCCESSIVE EXECUTOR FILED A LAWSUIT AND RECEIVED A JUDGMENT IN A LAWSUIT IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000. THE FLORIDA BAR INVESTIGATED AND DURING THE COURSE OF THAT INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED A TRUST ACCOUNT EXAMINATION ON THE RESPONDENT'S ACCOUNT. THAT TRUST ACCOUNT EXAMINATION REVEALED THERE WERE MINOR VIOLATIONS IN THE ACCOUNT. THAT IS NOT WHY WE WERE HERE TODAY. THE FUNDS THAT WERE STOLEN AND MISAPPROPRIATED FROM THE UNCLE'S ESTATE WERE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THAT TRUST ACCOUNT.
THERE HAS, NOW, BEEN A CRIMINAL CONVICTION ARISING OF THIS INCIDENT. IS THAT CORRECT?
YES, YOUR HONOR.
TELL US ABOUT THE CERTAIN CHARGES. WHAT ARE THE PLEAS AND WHAT ARE THE DATES OF THAT AND WHAT WAS THE SENTENCE?
YES, SIR. AFTER THE FLORIDA BAR CONDUCTED ITS INVESTIGATION, THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO THE STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THE STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE CHARGED THE RESPONDENT WITH FELONY OF THIRD-DEGREE GRAND THEFT. DURING THE COURSE OF THE BAR'S KARTION THE CRIMINAL CASE WAS, ALSO, PROGRESSING, AND ON SEPTEMBER 10, I BELIEVE, IS THE CORRECT DATE THE RESPONDENT ENTERED A PLEA TO GRAND THEY HAVE AND WAS ADJUDICATED GUILTY OF THEFT OF THE THIRD-DEGREE.
THIS YEAR?
YES. A.
DID THE BAR REFER THIS TO THE STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE?
THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.
HOW DO YOU DECIDE WHICH CASES TO REFER TO THE STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE? YOU DON'T ALWAYS REFER CASES WHERE MONEY IS STOLEN FROM CLIENTS TO THE STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. CORRECT?
THAT'S CORRECT.
SO WHEN DO YOU DECIDE? HOW DO YOU DECIDE WHEN TO DO THAT?
IT IS A QUESTION OF DISCRETION. HOWEVER, ANY TIME A FLORIDA BAR COUNSEL DETERMINES THAT THERE COULD BE A POTENTIAL CRIMINAL OFFENSE, THE MATTER IS REFERRED TO THE APPROPRIATE STATE ATTORNEY.
DOES THIS WEIGH IN THE SITUATION THAT THIS WASN'T AN ACTUAL TRUST ACCOUNT THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BUT SOME OTHER ACCOUNT THAT HE TOOK THE MONEY FROM?
THAT MADE NO DISTINCTION, IN TERMS OF MY MIND, WHEN I REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. I HAD A JUDGMENT SETTING FORT THAT HE HAD CONVERTED IN -- SETTING FORT THAT HE HAD CONVERTED IN EXCESS OF $20 FROM THE ESTATE AND BASED ON THAT IT WAS CLEAR THAT HE HAD STOLEN MONEY. GIVEN THAT TH.ATION, I REFERRED TO THE STATE ATTORNEY.
WHAT WAS THE SENTENCE IN THE CRIMINAL MATTER?
HE WAS ADJUDICATED AND PROCEEDED TO CRIMINALIZATION. DURING THE BAR PROCEEDINGS, AS WELL, THE RESPONDENT HAD PLACED IN HIS ATTORNEY'S TRUST ACCOUNT, $110,000. THERE HAD BEEN SOME NEGOTIATION TO SAY PAY THE $110,000 AS RESTITUTION AND COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF THE $468,000 JUDGMENT THAT WAS DERIVED IN NORTH CAROLINA. THE FUNDS, AS OF THE DATE OF THE FINAL HEARING --
I AM SORRY. THERE WAS A JUDGMENT FOR?
$468,000.
AGAINST THE RESPONDENT?
MR. CORR OWNS. THAT JUDGMENT -- MR. KORONES. THAT JUDGMENT, YOUR HONOR, INCLUDED AMOUNTS THAT WERE MISS APPROPRIATED. THERE WAS, ALSO, SOME ERRONEOUS AMOUNTS, IN MY OPINION, IN TERMS OF THE FINDINGS AT THAT TIME. MR. KORONES HAD BEEN ASSESSED WITH THE AMOUNTS THAT WERE TAKEN FROM THE SALE OF THE HOME, MR. KORONES' HOME, IS ALL KORONES -- SAUL KORONES' HOME. THE FACTS DID NOT FULLY DEVELOP, BECAUSE MR. KORONES DID NOT DEFEND ON THAT CASE. THE FLORIDA BAR DETERMINED, IN FACT, THROUGH A TITLE INSURANCE OR THROUGH AN ATTORNEY IN NORTH CAROLINA, HAD PROPERLY DISBURSED THE FUNDS FROM THE SALE OF THE HOME, SO THE FUNDS WERE, ALSO, INCLUDED IN THE SOMEWHAT AMOUNT OF $168,000. THERE WAS, ALSO, $150,000 PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND $150,000 ACTUAL DAMAGES, ALSO, ASSESSED, IN ADDITION TO THE MONIES THAT WERE CONVERTED. I CAN'T EXPLAIN THE CIVIL COURT'S JUDGMENT IN NORTH CAROLINA, BUT SUFFICE IT TO SAY IT WAS A SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENT AGAINST MR. KORONES.
THESE INCIDENTS OCCURRED IN WHAT YEARS?
1989, 1990, AND 1991.
AND AFTER -- WELL, DURING, FROM 1991, UNTIL WHENEVER THE FLORIDA BAR CAUGHT UP WITH THIS, WAS HE PRACTICING WITHOUT INCIDENT IN FLORIDA?
YES, YOUR HONOR, HE HAS. BUT I WOULD SUBMIT THAT RESPONDENT HAS BEEN UNDER THE MICROSCOPE ALL THIS TIME, IN TERMS OF HIS CONDUCT.
HOW DID SO MANY YEARS PASS, BEFORE THE FLORIDA BAR RECEIVED NOTICE OF THIS OR HOW DID IT HAPPEN THAT IT CAME TO THE FLORIDA BAR'S ATTENTION?
IN, I BELIEVE IT WAS IN 1995, THE BENEFICIARIES THOUGHT ACCOUNTINGS FROM -- THE BENEFICIARIES SOUGHT ACCOUNTINGS FROM RESPONDENT AND THE RESPONDENT DID NOT ADEQUATELY SATISFY THOSE CONCERNS AND THEN HE WAS IMMEDIATELY REMOVED AND HIS SUCCESSOR APPOINTED AND THEN SUED HIM. IT WAS TWO YEARS BEFORE THE FLORIDA BAR WAS EVER AND PRIZED WAS EVER AND PRIZED OF THAT -- AND PRICED OF THAT CASE.
-- APPRISED OF THAT CASE.
SHOULD YOU ADDRESS HOW WE SHOULD CONSIDER THAT FACTOR THAT HE HAD TWO YEARS TO SUE HIM? CAN YOU ADDRESS HOW WE SHOULD CONSIDER THAT FACTOR?
HE HAD TWO INCIDENCES BEFORE THIS, AND THE REPORT DOES NOT REFLECT THE REFEREE, WHO DOES RESPOND TWO PRIVATE REPRIMANDS THAT WERE A LONG TIME AGO, APPROXIMATELY 20 YEARS AGO, THAT WERE INTRODUCED DURING THE FINAL HEARING IN THIS CASE. HOWEVER, THEY WERE NOT CONSIDERED AS AN AGGRAVATING FACTOR, GIVEN THE AGE OF THE CASE, SO IT IS SOMEWHAT MISLEADING TO SAY THAT HE HAD NO PRIOR OFFENSES. THEY WERE JUST NOT CONSIDERED AS AGGRAVATING FACTORS.
DID IT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANY MONETARY PROBLEMS?
ONE WAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST CASE, WHERE IN HE BORROWED FUNDS FROM HIS CLIENT, AND I BELIEVE THAT THE BORROWING WAS SUBSEQUENT TO THE REPRESENTATION, BUT THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT THE RESPONDENT HAS HAD SERIOUS FINANCIAL PROBLEMS THROUGHOUT HIS LAST 20 OR 30 YEARS OF HIS PRACTICE.
HOW UNUSUAL IS IT TO REFER ONE OF THESE TRUST ACCOUNT CASES TO THE STATE ATTORNEYS OFFICE? AND IS THE MOTIVATING FACTOR, THERE, THE AMOUNT THAT IS TAKEN?
NO, YOUR HONOR. THE AMOUNT IS NOT A FACTOR. IN MY DETERMINATION NATION IN FORWARDING THE CASE TO THE STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. IT IS NOT AN UNUSUAL OCCURRENCE TO TAKE PLACE, BUT I DO NOT LIGHTLY REFER CASES TO THE STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. I HAVE TO MAKE SOME TYPE OF THRESHOLD DETERMINATION OF MY OWN.
THAT IS WHAT I AM TRYING TO GET. WHAT GOES INTO THAT THRESHOLD DETERMINATION?
A DETERMINATION SUCH AS YOU HAVE HERE, WHERE THE RESPONDENT INTENTIONALLY, DELIBERATELYLY, CONVERTED -- DELIBERATELY, CONVERTED THOSE FUNDS TO HIS OWN USE.
BUT ISN'T THAT THE SITUATION IN MOST TRUST ACCOUNT CASES?
NO, SIR, THERE ARE NOT. THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE IN WE HAVE HAD LAWYERS LAWYERS WHO HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT GOES ON IN TERMS OF A TRUST ACCOUNT, NOT IN THE WAY AFTER EXCUSE, BUT IT GOES TO THAT INTENT FACTOR, WHETHER IT IS A KNOWING AND INTENTIONAL THEFT OF THOSE FUNDS, VERSUS A GROSS MISMANAGEMENT. IN THE WIG HAM CASE, FOR EXAMPLE.
AM I TO UNDERSTAND THAT, IN MOST TRUST ACCOUNT CASES, WHERE IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE LAWYER KNEW HE WAS STEALING FROM THE TRUST ACCOUNT, YOU REFER THAT TO THE STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. IS THAT A CORRECT STATEMENT?
YES, I DO HAVE.
THERE IS SOME INDICATION THAT THE RESTITUTION ISSUE WAS STILL SOMEWHAT IN THE AIR IN OUR FILES, THAT SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT THE SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT OR SETTLEMENT WAS BEING CIRCULATED. COULD YOU LET US KNOW THE STATUS OF THAT, AND DOES THAT INVOLVE THE NORTH CAROLINA ACTION, AS WELL AS THIS BAR MATTER?
YES, YOUR HONOR. THAT WAS A FACTOR THAT THE REFEREE CONSIDERED AS MITIGATION. OBVIOUSLY A STRONG MITIGATION FOR THE RESPONDENT, TO MITIGATE DOWN TO 90 DAYS, BUT AS OF THE DATE OF THE FINAL HEARING, THE RESPONDENT HAD AN AGREEMENT WITH THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE BENEFICIARIES IN NORTH CAROLINA, THAT HE WOULD RETURN $110,000 IN FULL SATISFACTION. I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT $110,000 DID NOT COME FROM THE RESPONDENT'S MONEY, HIMSELF. HE HAD BORROWED FUNDS FROM FRIENDS. 100% OF THOSE FUNDS CAME FROM BORROWED FUNDS FROM HIS FRIENDS.
HAS THAT BEEN COMPLETED? THAT IS MY QUESTION.
IT WAS COMPLETED IN JULY OF 1999, SOME SIX MONTHS AFTER THE FINAL HEARING. THAT MITIGATION, THAT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS MITIGATION IN THIS CASE. STANDARD 9.4 A SAYS THAT A FORCED OR COMPELLED RESTITUTION SHOULD NOT BE SHOWN AS A MIGHT DEBATING OR AGGRAVATING FACTOR. IT SHOULD NOT BE SHOWN AS CONSIDERED TO BE A MITIGATING FACTOR. THE CLIENT MADE THAT RESTITUTION NOT FOR THE BAR PROCEEDINGS, BUT HE MADE THAT TO STAY OUT OF JAIL IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, SO IT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A MITIGATOR, AND IT CERTAINLY SHOULDN'T BE CONSIDERED A MITIGATOR TO WARRANT THE SUSPENSION OF THIS CASE DOWN TO A 90-DAY SUSPENSION. THIS CASE, THE STANDARDS, AS WELL AS THE CASE LAW, OBVIOUSLY, CALL FOR A PRESUMPTION OF DISBARMENT. A LAWYER WHO INTENTIONALLY, DELIBERATELY CONVERTS MONIES TO HIS OWN SELF AND THEN MAKES MISREPRESENTATION TO SAY CONCEAL THOSE FUNDS, SHOULD NOT PRACTICE LAW IN THIS STATE. THE STANDARD 9.411 SAYS ABS AGGRAVATING OR -- SAYS ABSENT AGGRAVATE ARE OR MITIGATING FACTORS -- AGGRAVATOR OR MITIGATING FACTORS. IT SAYS REGARDLESS OF THE INJURY. STANDARD 9.511 SAYS THAT SAYS ABS MITIGATING OR AGGRAVATING FACTORS, SERIOUS CRIMINAL CONDUCT, WHICH IS A NECESSARY ELEMENT, INCLUDING THEFT, IS, ALSO, DISBARMENT. I WILL CLOSE AT THIS POINT FOR MY REBUTTAL.
THANK YOU. MR. RICE.
GOOD MORNING. MAY IT PLACE PLEASE THE COURT. MY -- MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. MY NAME IS MARTIN RICE. I REPRESENT DAVID KORONES HERE, TODAY, A SAD AND UNFORTUNATE, TODAY, TO ARRIVE AT THE COURT ON BEHALF OF A GENTLEMAN WHO HAS, OVER HIS CAREER, ESTABLISHED HIMSELF AS A DISTINGUISHED MEMBER OF THE BAR AND A DISTINGUISHED MEMBER OF OUR COMMUNITY IN PINELLAS COUNTY. YOU HAVE SEEN, UNDOUBTEDLY, THE INFORMATION THAT IS ATTACHED TO THE REFEREE'S RECOMMENDATION THAT SHOWS HIS LONG AND DEDICATED SERVICE TO BOTH THE BAR AND TO THIS COMMUNITY.
MR. RICE, LET ME POSE THE QUESTION THAT I POSED TO COUNSEL MR. TRAVIS. WHY ISN'T IT THE RULE THAT WE SHOULD HAVE, IN THIS STATE, THAT LAWYERS WHO STEAL FROM PEOPLE THAT PLACE THEMSELVES IN THEIR TRUST, ARE NOT GOING TO BE LAWYERS IN FLORIDA?
THE RESPONSE IS A BIT OF A PERSONAL RESPONSE, INSTEAD OF A, NECESSARILY, A LEGAL RESPONSE, BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS A MORAL ISSUE THAT WE ALL HAVE TO ADDRESS FOR OURSELVES, AND WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT HOW WE IMPOSE THAT DEFINITION OF MORALITY ON THIS 65,000-PLUS-MEMBER GROUP OF LAWYERS. CERTAINLY THIS COURT, EXCUSE ME, BOARD, SETS AS A REGULATORY BODY AS WELL AS A BODY SEEKING APPELLATE REVIEW IN THIS TYPE OF CASE, AND PRESUMABLY HAS THE PREROGATIVE TO RENDER THAT TYPE OF -- REACH THAT TYPE AFTER CONCLUSION. I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU, HOWEVER, THAT THAT TYPE OF A CONCLUSION WOULD BE IN ERROR. THERE ARE MANY CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH LAWYERS MAY END UP MISAPPROPRIATING THE MONEY. IF WE HAD A BLANKET RULE THAT SAID OF THE 65,000 LAWYERS, ANY MISAPPROPRIATION WOULD RESULT IN AN AUTOMATIC DISBARMENT, THAT WOULD SWEEP UP, IN THAT RULE, PEOPLE WHO MAY -- WHO, UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES, MISS ROPTED MONEY FOR GOOD PURPOSES -- MISAPPROPRIATED MONEY FOR GOOD PURPOSES, FOR THE FEEDING OF SOMEONE, FOR THE PAYMENT OF CANCER TREATMENT, FOR ALL KINDS OF THING THAT IS THE MIND CAN CONQUER UP. IT WOULD -- CAN CONJURE UP. IT WOULD ALSO IMPOSE DISBARMENT UNDER RULES RELATED TO $10, INSTEAD OF LARGER SUMS OF MONEY. THIS IS A CONVERSATION, THOUGH, THAT WE CAN ALL DISAGREE ON AND THAT IS WORTHY OF DEBATE.
LET ME ASK YOU, ALSO, IN RESPECT TO MR. KORONES, WHO CERTAINLY SERVED LONG AND WELL AS A MEMBER OF THE REGULATORY ARM OF THIS COURT, THAT HE WAS IN A CAPACITY IN WHICH HE WAS RULING ON OTHER LAWYERS WHO HAD SIMILAR TYPE OF GRIEVANCES ON A REGULAR BASIS. NOW, WHAT -- WHAT IS THIS COURT TO DO WITH SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN IN THAT CAPACITY AND THEN TURNS AROUND AND STEALS FROM MONIES THAT ARE ENTRUSTED TO THEM?
WELL, OBVIOUSLY, I THINK
THE BETTER REASON TO RULE, TO
APPLY HERE, IS TO LOOK AT THE
CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THIS
INCIDENT HAS OCCURRED, AND YOU
CAN LOOK AT, UNQUESTIONABLY,
YOU CAN LOOK AT MR. KORONES'
PRIOR BAR INVOLVEMENT AS BEING
A POSITIVE OR A NEGATIVE.
YOU CAN LOOK AT ALL OF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES REGARDING HIS
ENTIRE BACKGROUND, AND THEN
MAKE A LEARNED DECISION, WITH
RESPECT TO WHAT TYPE OF
PUNISHMENT SHOULD BE IMPOSED.
INCIDENTAL TO -- NOT
INCIDENTAL TO PREPARING FOR
THIS PRESENTATION BUT SIMPLY
COINCIDENTAL TO IT, I READ
SOME WRITINGS BY FINEMENT, WHO
IS A PHYSICIST, AND HE WRITES
ABOUT THE APPLICATION OF
SCIENCE IN REGARD TO RELIGION,
AND IN HIS WRITINGS, HE SAYS
THAT, IN SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS,
IF YOU HAVE A RULE, AND THE
RULE HAS AN EXCEPTION, THEN
THE RULE IS INVALID.
AND IT STRUCK ME, IN LOOKING
AT THESE CASES, WHERE THIS
COURT HAS SHOWN JUDGMENT AND
COMPASSION AND IMPOSED
PUNISHMENT LESS THAN
DISBARMENT, THAT, IN LAW, IF
WE HAD A RULE THAT HAD NO
EXCEPTIONS, THE RULE WOULD BE
ILLOGICAL.
WE REQUIRE THESE EXCEPTIONS.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE A
PROBLEM THAT IS PERCEIVED,
HERE, OR ANNOUNCED AS BEING
PERCEIVED, AT ANY RATE, THAT
LAWYERS FAILED TO UNDERSTAND
THAT, AS A GENERAL PROPOSITION,
DISBARMENT WILL RESULT FROM
THE MISS APPLICATION OF FUNDS.
I THINK THE EXCEPTIONS THAT
APPLY HERE, AND IF I MIGHT
PREFACE MY RESPONSE TO THAT
QUESTION, THE REFEREE FOUND A
NUMBER OF MITIGATING FACTORS
TO EXIST IN THIS CASE.
THE BAR DOES NOT DISPUTE THOSE
MITIGATING FACTORS.
THE BAR DOES DISPUTE, I
BELIEVE, THE APPLICATION OF
THE ISSUE OF RESTITUTION AS A
MITIGATING FACTOR.
JUSTICE PARIENTE ASKED A
QUESTION IN THE EARLIER CASE.
YOU MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN
IN THE AUDIENCE.
DEALING WITH WHETHER OR NOT
THERE WAS MITIGATION HERE
CONCERNING THE ACTUAL
OCCURRENCE, THAT IS, WERE
THERE CIRCSTANDS.
YOU STARTED, IN RESPONSE --
CIRCUMSTANCES, YOU STARTED, IN
RESPONSE TO JUSTICE WELLS, THE
QUESTION SAYING THAT SOMEBODY
IS STARVING OR CANCER
TREATMENT OR THAT KIND OF
THING.
WHAT MITIGATION IS THERE
PRESENTED IN THE RECORD, HERE,
ABOUT THE ACTUAL OCCURRENCE
THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT?
THAT IS WAS THERE ANY
MITIGATION OFFERED TO EXPLAIN
OR TO ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY THE
TAKING OF THE FUNDS HERE?
I BELIEVE THERE WAS
SIGNIFICANT MITIGATION OFFERED
TO ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN THIS
MISS APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS.
THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT WAS
OFFERED TO INDICATE THAT
MR. KORONES SUFFERED FROM A
HEART CONDITION, THAT HE WAS
TAKING XANAX AND PHEURONOL, IN
RESPONSE TO THAT MEDICAL
CONDITION.
THOSE DRUGS CAN INFLUENCE
ONE'S JUDGMENT.
THERE WAS TESTIMONY TO THE
FACT THAT MR. KORONES WAS
UNDER SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL
DIFFICULTIES DURING THIS TIME.
HE HAD THREE CHILDREN IN
PRIVATE SCHOOLS.
THE TUITION, ALONE, I BELIEVE,
APPROACHED $60,000 A YEAR FOR
THESE THREE CHILDREN.
ESSENTIALLY HE GOT HIMSELF
INTO ECONOMIC DIFFICULTIES,
BECAUSE OF HIS INABILITY TO
SAY NO, BOTH IN SOME RESPECTS
TO THE COMMUNITY AND, IN SOME
RESPECTS, TO HIS FAMILY.
THAT IS HARDLY SOUNDING
LIKE THE KIND OF MITIGATION,
YOU KNOW, PAYING $60,000 A
YEAR FOR PRIVATE SCHOOLING OF
YOUR CHILDREN, HOW IS THAT
GOING TO BE MITIGATION FOR
STEALING $120,000 FROM AN
ESTATE?
I DON'T THINK ANY ONE OF
THESE FACTORS THAT STAND AS
MITIGATION ON THEIR OWN CAN
STAND AS JUSTIFICATION FOR
TAKING THE MONEY.
MR. CORR OWNS -- MR. KORONES
OFFERED NO JUSTIFICATION FOR
TAKING THE MONEY.
HE ACKNOWLEDGED HIS
WRONGDOING.
HE EXPRESSED GREAT REMORSE.
THE REFEREE, I THINK YOU WILL
OBSERVE IN THE REPORT, SAID
THAT HE WAS CRUSHED BY AND
DEVASTATED BY THE EVENTS THAT
HAD OCCURRED HERE, SO THERE IS
NO JUSTIFICATION FOR TAKING
THE MONEY.
WHAT PERIOD OF TIME ARE WE
TALKING ABOUT, HERE, IN TERMS
OF WAS THERE A PERIOD OF TIME
ESTABLISHED FROM THE FIRST
TAKING, UP THROUGHOUT
ACCUMULATED AMOUNT?
YES.
THE TAKINGS OCCUR IN 1989, '90
AND '91.
THE BAR HAS AN EXHIBIT, I
BELIEVE IT IS 22, THAT
EMPHASIZES THE SIGNIFICANT
FUNDS, I THINK, WERE TAKEN IN
1989, ROUGHLY TEN YEARS AGO.
CONCEDINGLY, THERE WERE SOME
ACTIONS OF FAILING TO REVEAL
THE DEFALCATIONS LATER ON, IN
'94, WHEN THE ACCOUNTING WAS
SENT OUT, BUT PRINCIPLY, THE
MISS APPLICATION OF THE FUNDS
OCCURRED IN 1989.
I WOULD LIKE TO, ALSO, AND
THIS IS NOT DIRECTLY IN
RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION THAT
WAS ASKED, BUT I WOULD, ALSO,
LIKE TO ADDRESS A COUPLE OF
THE COMMENTS MADE BY
MR. RISTOFF.
THERE IS CONFUSION ABOUT THIS
JUDGE IN NORTH CAROLINA.
YOU WILL SEE, IN THE RECORDS,
THAT A COMPLAINT WAS FILED
AGAINST MR. KORONES, CLAIMING,
ROUGHLY, $200,000 IN MISS
APPLIED FUNDS.
HE FILED AN ANSWER TO THAT
COMPLAINT AND SAID,
ESSENTIALLY, THERE IS
$120,000-SOME MISSING HERE.
THE REST, REALLY, WAS FROM THE
SALE OF A PROPERTY THAT GOT
DISBURSED TO THE
BENEFICIARIES.
THE EVIDENCE LATER CONFIRMED
THAT THAT WAS ACCURATE.
THE MONEY WAS DISPERSED TO THE
BENEFICIARIES.
THEREAFTER, THE COMPLAINT WAS
AMENDED TO ALONG FRAUD AND A
VARIETY OF ALLEGATIONS.
THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS
REPORT TO O. O. IN THIS RECORD
TO SHOW THAT THAT COMPLAINT
WAS EVER SERVES ON
MR. KORONES.
HE LATER RECEIVED THE JUDGMENT
FROM NORTH CAROLINA.
IT IS ILLOGICAL AND ADDS
NUMBERS UP THAT APPEAR TO COME
FROM NO PLACE.
THE $110,000 THAT WAS AGREED
TO REPRESENTS THE PRINCIPAL
ASSUME THAT THE BENEFICIARIES
WOULD HAVE RECEIVED.
THE BAR IS NOT RELYING ON
THAT $400,000 JUDGMENT, IN
DETERMINING WHAT THE
PUNISHMENT SHOULD BE, AT LEAST
AS I UNDERSTAND IT.
IS THAT CORRECT?
THAT IS UNCLEAR TO ME.
THEY HAVE MADE REFERENCE TO IT
IN THEIR BRIEF AND THEY HAVE,
CERTAINLY, MADE REFERENCE TO
IT IN THE HEARING BELOW.
I UNDERSTAND, AT LEAST THE
ORAL REMARKS HERE, TO BE THAT
THERE WERE LOTS OF PROBLEMS
WITH THAT JUDGMENT AND THE BAR,
REALLY, TALKING ABOUT THE
AMOUNT THAT THE CRIMINAL
CONVICTION, YOU KNOW, WAS FOR,
AND THE AMOUNTS THAT WERE
DETERMINED BY THE BAR'S
CHARGINGS HERE, NOT -- THE
BAR'S CHARGES HERE, NOT -- HAS
THERE EVER BEEN A FORMAL
CHARGE CLAIMING THAT AN AMOUNT
SOMETHING LIKE $400,000 WAS
TAKEN BY YOUR CLIENT?
NO.
NO.
THE $120,000-SOME FIGURE THAT
WE REFERRED TO WAS THE
STIPULATED AMOUNT.
LET ME, ALSO, POINT OUT TO THE
COURT, IF I MAY THAT, THE
CONVICTION THAT HAS OCCURRED
IN THIS INSTANCE, AS
MR. RISTOFF INDICATED,
OCCURRED JUST REST HENTLY, IN
-- RECENTLY, IN SEPTEMBER OF
1999.
THAT OCCURRED AFTER WE BRIEFED
THIS CASE AND CHANGES THE
COMPLEX OF THE CASE, OBVIOUSLY.
THE 90-DAY SUSPENSION THAT HAS
BEEN IMPOSED OR RECOMMENDED BY
JUDGE FOSTER WOULD NOW, ON ITS
FACE, BE MODIFIED TO 90-DAY
SUSPENSION, SUBJECT TO
MR. KORONES OBTAINING THE
REINSTATEMENT OF HIS CIVIL
RIGHTS.
HE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DO THAT,
OBTAIN REINSTATEMENT OF HIS
CIVIL RIGHTS, UNTIL THE
SENTENCE HAS BEEN CONCLUDED,
AND THAT SENTENCE IS A
SENTENCE OF TWO YEARS OF
PROBATION, IN THAT UNDERLYING
CASE.
WOULD YOU ADDRESS THE ISSUE
OF RESTITUTION.
DO YOU AGREE THAT, IN THIS
CASE, THAT THE FIRST TIME THAT
THIS -- THAT RESPONDENT
ATTEMPTED RESTITUTION WAS,
FIRST OF ALL, OF COURSE, AFTER
THE BENEFICIARIES FOUND OUT
WHAT HAD GONE ON.
IN OTHER WORDS THERE WAS
NOTHING DURING THE PERIOD OF
TIME, WHERE HE ATTEMPTED TO
MAKE RESTITUTION BY PUTTING
THE MONIES BACK INTO THE --
INTO THE ESTATE ACCOUNT.
CORRECT?
YES.
YES.
I AGREE WITH THAT.
AND THEN, WHAT ABOUT THE
COMMENT THAT, BECAUSE THE
RESTITUTION OCCURRED, PURSUANT
TO AN OBLIGATION AND AS A
CONDITION OF HIS CRIMINAL
PUNISHMENT, THAT THAT SHOULD
NOT BE CONSIDERED IN THIS CASE,
AS A MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE?
BUT MY VIEW OF THAT WOULD
BE THAT IT SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED AS A MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCE, IT SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED OVERALL, IN
EVALUATING THE CASE.
THAT THERE, IN FACT, HAS BEEN
RESTITUTION.
SHOULD HE BE GIVEN AS MUCH
CREDIT -- EXCUSE ME -- SHOULD
HE BE GIVEN AS MUCH CREDIT,
HAD HE FOUND AWAY TO PONY UP
EARLY ON, BEFORE THERE WAS
DETECTION, PROBABLY NOT.
SHOULD HE BE GIVEN AS MUCH
CREDIT, HE HAD PAID THIS IN
ANOTHER MANNER, PROBABLY NOT.
THE MANNER IN WHICH THIS
OCCURRED, IS THAT, ONCE THIS
WAS MADE PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE AND
WANDERS ONCE IT WAS PRINTED IN
THE -- AND ONCE IT WAS PRINTED
IN THE PUBLIC UP IN,
MR. KORONES'S FRIENDS CAME TO
HIS AID AND LOANED HIM MONEY.
YOU TALKED TO JUSTICE WELLS
ABOUT OBLIGATIONS, AND I AM
STILL HAVING DIFFICULTY IN
THIS CASE, THAT A LAWYER WHO
HAS BEEN A LAWYER FOR MANY
YEARS, IN GOOD STANDING WITH
THE FLORIDA BAR, IS FOUND
GUILTY OF GRAND THEFT, WHICH,
I UNDERSTAND, YOU SAY, BUT
ESSENTIALLY THAT IS WHAT IT
WAS BEFORE IT WAS GIVEN A
CRIMINAL NAME, AND, REALLY,
HAS NO REASON, OTHER THAN HIS
OWN PERSONAL SITUATION, AS FAR
AS THAT HIS OTHER OBLIGATIONS
IN HIS LIFE.
HOW CAN IT BE JUSTIFIED TO
GIVE THIS RESPONDENT LESS THAN
DISBARMENT?
AND NOT BE TELLING EVERYONE
OUT THERE THAT, IF SOMEBODY IS
GOING ALONG AND HAD A PRETTY
GOOD LIFE AS A LAWYER, MAYBE
SOMETIMES THEY WILL BE
DISBARRED AND SOMETIMES THEY
WON'T.
JUST DEPENDS ON, YOU KNOW,
WHAT THE MEDICAL CONDITION IS
OR WHAT THE INDIVIDUAL
CIRCUMSTANCES ARE.
I MEAN, WHAT GUIDELINES WOULD
THAT BE GIVING ANYONE?
I THINK THE GUIDELINE THAT
EXISTS RIGHT NOW IS A POWERFUL
GUIDELINE AND IS WELL
EXPRESSED, AND THAT IS THAT
THERE IS A PRESUMPTION OF
DISBARMENT.
WE ARE NOT OVERRUN WITH THESE
CASES.
I AM NOT -- IT IS NOT TO SAY
THAT THEY DON'T EXIST.
THEY DO.
BUT I THINK THERE COMES A TIME,
INTO THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE, WHEN WE HAVE TO LOOK
AT HOW A PERSON HAS LIVED
THEIR ENTIRE LIFE, WHAT KIND
OF CONTRIBUTION THEY HAVE MADE,
AND BALANCE THAT AND LOOK AT
THE PHYSICAL CONDITIONS, THE
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS, THE DRUG
TREATMENT THAT EXISTED IN THIS
CASE, AND BALANCE THAT AGAINST
THE PUNISHMENT IN A PARTICULAR
INSTANCE.
AND IN MY VIEW, WHEN YOU LOOK
AT DAVID KORONES, DAVID
KORONES DOESN'T HAVE A RESUME
THAT SHOWS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO
HAS DONE THINGS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF BUILDING THIS
RESUME.
DAVID KORONES HAS A RESUME
THAT SHOWS THAT HE HAS GIVEN,
HIS ENTIRE LIFE, TO THE
COMMUNITY.
HE HAS GIVEN, HIS ENTIRE LIFE,
TO THE BAR, AND, I THINK,
THERE HAS TO COME SOME TIME
WHEN THAT IS WORTH SOMETHING.
AND I THINK, ON BALANCE, THAT
SUGGESTS THAT A GENTLEMAN WHO
IS NOW APPROACHING HIS MID60s,
WHOSE ONLY ABILITY TO PAY BACK
THE MONEY IS THROUGH MEMBERS
OF THE COMMUNITY WHO CAME TO
HIS AID THROUGH THE PRACTICE
OF LAW, WHO HAS EVIDENCED THAT,
FOR THE TEN YEARS SINCE THESE
INCIDENTS OCCURRED, THAT HE
HAS BEEN ABLE TO PROPERLY
PRACTICE LAW, SUGGESTS THAT
SOMETHING SHORT OF DISBARMENT
WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR. RICE.
MR. RISTOFF.
I JUST HAVE A FEW BRIEF
REMARKS.
COULD YOU ADDRESS WHETHER,
IN ANY SITUATION, THIS COURT
SHOULD CONSIDER THAT, IF THE
ATTORNEY IS DISBARRED, THEY
CAN'T PRACTICE THEIR
PROFESSION, SO THEY CAN'T MAKE
RESTITUTION?
SHOULD THAT EVER BE A
CONSIDERATION?
NO, IT SHOULDN'T.
THOSE FACTORS CAN BE
DETERMINED IN REINSTATEMENT
PROCEEDINGS, FOLLOWING THE
DISBARMENT TIME PERIOD, BUT IT
SHOULD NOT BE A CRITICAL
FACTOR IN DETERMINING THE
APPROPRIATE SANCTION.
I MEAN, IT STRICKTS STRIKES
ME THAT THAT WOULD BE -- IT
STRIKES ME THAT THAT WOULD BE
THE CASE IN EVERY SITUATION
WHERE THERE IS RESTITUTION.
I BELIEVE THAT THAT WOULD
BE CORRECT.
THE LORD CASE INDICATES WHAT
THE BALANCE SHOULD BE OF THE
OBJECTIVES IN A BAR DISCIPLINE
CASE.
FAIR TO THE SOCIETY, FAIR TO
THE RESPONDENT, AND, ALSO, NOT
TO BE OVERLOOKED IS THE
JUDGMENT MUST BE SEVERE ENOUGH
TO DETER OTHER LAWYERS WHO
MIGHT BE PRONE OR ATTEMPTED TO
BECOME INVOLVED IN THESE
VIOLATIONS.
I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THAT A
90-DAY SUSPENSION IS CERTAINLY
NOT GOING TO DO THAT, NOR IS
IT GOING TO PROTECT THE
PUBLIC.
THERE HAVE BEEN QUESTIONS IN
TERMS OF WHETHER OR NOT THESE
FINANCIAL PROBLEMS OR STRESS
PROBLEMS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED
SUFFICIENT MITIGATION ON
BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.
THE POINT OF THE GRAHAM CASE,
SET FORTH IN THE BAR'S BRIEFS,
IT INDICATES SADLY STRESSFUL,
FAMILIAR ILLIAL AND FINANCIAL
OBLIGATIONS ARE COMMON
PROBLEMS.
THESE ARE NOT, AGAIN,
SUFFICIENT MITIGATORS TO
REDUCE THIS CASE TO A 90-DAY
SUSPENSION.
DISBARMENT IS APPROPRIATE IN
THIS CASE.
IN TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT,
THE $110,000, I WOULD LIKE TO
POINT OUT TO THE COURT, AS
WELL, THAT THAT $110,000 DOES
NOT OFFER ANY INTEREST ON THE
MONIES THAT WERE TAKEN BY THE
RESPONDENT.
THE RESPONDENT'S POSITION WAS
THAT HE WAS PLACING THAT
$110,000, HE WOULD BE PLACING
THE BENEFICIARIES IN THE SAME
PLACE THAT THEY WILL HAVE BEEN
IN -- THAT THEY WOULD HAVE
BEEN IN 1991, HAD HE NOT
STOLEN THE MONEY.
CLEARLY THOSE BENEFICIARIES
HAVE BEEN DAMAGED BY THE THEFT
OF THOSE MONIES AND LOSS OF
THAT INTEREST.
I WOULD POINT OUT, IN THE
McCHRUR CASE, WHICH
MS. McCLURE WAS DISBARRED FROM
TAKING MONIES FROM THE ESTATE,
IT INDICATED THAT ALTHOUGH
RESTITUTION WAS MADE, IT MAKES
LITTLE DIFFERENCE TO THE
BENEFICIARY WHETHER THE MONEY
WAS TAKEN INTENTIONALLY OR
THROUGH NEGLIGENCE, AND I
POINT THAT OUT, IN THAT
MR. RICE HAS INDICATED THAT
THE RESPONDENT HAS GIVEN A LOT
BACK TO THE COMMUNITY, AND HE
HAS.
HOWEVER, MOST OF THAT CIVIC
AND BOARD ACTIVITY WAS ABOUT
20 YEARS AGO.
IT STILL SHOULD BE CONSIDERED
ON HIS BEHALF.
HOWEVER, THAT MAKES NO
DIFFERENCE TO THESE
BENEFICIARIES.
THESE BENEFICIARIES HAD OVER
$120,000 STOLEN FROM THEM.
THE RESPONDENT'S CIVIC DUTIES
MAKE LITTLE DIFFERENCE TO
THOSE PEOPLE.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
THANKS TO BOTH OF YOU.
WE WILL BE IN RECESS FOR 15
MINUTES.
BAILIFF: PLEASE RISE.
BAILIFF: PLEASE RISE.
PLEASE BE SEATED.
NEXT CASE ON THE COURT'S