Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Nos. 70114, 70907.

Advocates

John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director and John T. Berry, Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, and Randi Klayman Lazarus, Bar Counsel and Kevin Tynan, Co-Bar Counsel, Miami, for complainant. Michael J. Knowles, Miami, in pro per.

Judges

Rosemary Barkett

See more information ...

Smart Summary

The Florida Bar v. Michael J. Knowles, No. 70114, 70907 (Fla. Dec. 8, 1988)

Factual and Procedural Background

This disciplinary proceeding was initiated by The Florida Bar and proceeded to the Supreme Court of Florida on the Bar's complaint and the referee's report. The referee recommended findings that respondent Michael J. Knowles engaged in neglect, failure to communicate with clients, refusal to return files, and misappropriation, and recommended a three-year suspension. Knowles filed a petition for review contesting the referee's findings and the recommended discipline; the Bar sought disbarment. The Court exercised jurisdiction under article V, section 15 of the Florida Constitution, accepted all but one of the referee's findings, and imposed a three-year suspension.

On the merits, the referee found: on two occasions Knowles failed to pay for charges on account leading to default judgments; on two occasions he issued bad checks (one to his secretary, one to a client); on various occasions he neglected legal matters, failed to return client phone calls, and failed to advise clients of case status. The Court rejected one specific finding (count IV of case no. 70,114) for insufficient evidence concerning failure to advise a client of a final custody hearing.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the referee's findings of professional misconduct against Michael J. Knowles were supported by the record.
What disciplinary sanction is appropriate for the misconduct found — whether disbarment (as sought by the Bar) or suspension (as recommended by the referee) is warranted.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
The Florida Bar v. Newman, 513 So.2d 656	Supports the proposition that misuse or misappropriation of client funds is a serious offense.	Cited to underscore the gravity of Knowles' actions in issuing a dishonored check to a client and the characterization of those actions as tantamount to misappropriation.
The Florida Bar v. Breed, 378 So.2d 783	Supports the proposition that misuse or misappropriation of client funds is a serious offense.	Used with Newman to reinforce that misappropriation of client funds warrants severe discipline.
The Florida Bar v. Shapiro, 450 So.2d 842	Addresses the significance of cumulative misconduct and the need for severe penalties in appropriate cases.	Cited to justify that Knowles' cumulative neglect and unavailability to clients warrants a severe penalty in addition to the misappropriation finding.
The Florida Bar v. Knowles, No. 68,904 (Fla. Sept. 26, 1986) (order suspending Knowles and holding him in contempt)	Demonstrates respondent's prior disciplinary history and prior suspension.	Referenced in Justice Barkett's special concurrence as a factor that helps justify the present discipline.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court reviewed the referee's findings and accepted all except count IV of case no. 70,114, which it found unsupported by the record (insufficient evidence that Knowles failed to advise a client of a final custody hearing resulting in adverse consequences). The Court analyzed the default-judgment incidents and concluded that failure to pay and resulting default judgments, without more, do not necessarily bear on fitness to practice and were not significant enough alone to justify severe discipline.

By contrast, the Court found more serious misconduct in count I of case no. 70,907: Knowles received payment to redeem bonds, issued a check to the client for proceeds less his fee, the check was dishonored, and although he later made the client whole after a Bar complaint, the conduct was tantamount to misappropriation. Relying on precedent that misappropriation of client funds is among the most serious lawyer offenses and considering Knowles' cumulative pattern of neglect and unavailability, the Court concluded that a severe sanction was warranted.

Accordingly, the Court imposed a suspension tailored to protect clients and permit orderly winding up of practice, and imposed conditions including rehabilitation, restitution, and payment of costs.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSITION: The Court ordered that Michael J. Knowles be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years and thereafter until he proves his rehabilitation, pays the costs of the proceeding, and makes restitution to his clients.

Additional directives and direct effects:

Suspension becomes effective thirty days from the date the opinion was filed; Knowles must accept no new business after the opinion's filing date.
Judgment for costs was entered against Knowles in the amount of $4,246.00, for which execution may issue.

The opinion does not announce or discuss any new broader legal precedent; its immediate effect is the disciplinary sanction and conditions imposed on respondent.

Show full summary ...

THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT, v. MICHAEL J. KNOWLES, RESPONDENT.

PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary proceeding is before us on complaint of the Florida Bar and the referee's report. The referee recommends finding Knowles guilty of conduct involving neglect, failure to communicate with clients, refusal to return files, and misappropriation, inter alia, and recommends a three-year suspension. Knowles has filed a petition for review, contesting the referee's findings of fact and the recommended discipline. The bar, on the other hand, seeks Knowles' disbarment. We have jurisdiction under article V, section 15 of the Florida Constitution. We accept all but one of the referee's findings, and suspend Knowles for three years.

Because the findings are too lengthy to reproduce fully here, we will summarize them briefly. On two separate occasions Knowles failed to pay for charges on account; final judgments by default were entered against him. On two other occasions Knowles issued bad checks — one to his secretary and one to a client. Regarding the check to his secretary, Knowles claims that his secretary was merely embarrassed by the incident and that he did her a favor by hiring her. On various occasions Knowles neglected legal matters before him, failed to return client phone calls, and failed to properly advise his client of the status of a case.

We accept all of the findings except for count IV of case no. 70,114. In that count the referee found that Knowles failed to advise his client of a final hearing in a custody case, and as a result of this hearing "the opposing party received custody of the child, he had to pay her lawyer's fees, he had his salary garnished, his child support was increased and his visitation rights were restricted." We found insufficient evidence in the record to support this finding.

The other findings are proved. We should first discuss the impact of the default judgments. The referee found Knowles guilty of violating Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and 1-102(A)(6) (conduct adversely reflecting upon one's fitness to practice law) of the former Code of Professional Responsibility. Failure to pay for charges on account and having a default judgment entered against one without more does not necessarily relate to fitness to practice law. In this case, these are not significant violations and do not (in and of themselves) warrant the drastic punishment requested by the bar.

The other violations are more serious, especially count I of case no. 70,907. Knowles agreed to redeem certain bonds for a client in exchange for a fee. He received payment and then issued a check to the client for the bond proceeds less his fee, but the check was dishonored. Although Knowles later made good on the check after the client complained to the bar, Knowles' actions were tantamount to misappropriation. The misuse or misappropriation of client funds is one of the most serious offenses a lawyer can commit. The Florida Bar v. Newman, 513 So.2d 656 (Fla. 1987); The Florida Bar v. Breed, 378 So.2d 783 (Fla. 1979). Moreover, the cumulative nature of Knowles' other conduct of not attending to his work and his unavailability to clients warrants a severe penalty. See The Florida Bar v. Shapiro, 450 So.2d 842 (Fla. 1984).

We hereby suspend Knowles for a period of three years and thereafter until he shall prove his rehabilitation, pay the cost of this proceeding, and make restitution to his clients. In order to protect his clients and close out his practice in an orderly fashion Knowles' suspension will be effective thirty days from the date this opinion is filed. Knowles will accept no new business after this opinion's filing date. Judgment is entered against Knowles for costs in the amount of $4,246.00, for which sum let execution issue.

It is so ordered.

EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, SHAW, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.

BARKETT, J., concurs specially with an opinion.

BARKETT, Justice, specially concurring.

I concur with the majority holding as to Count I of Case No. 70,907. I also agree that a default judgment does not warrant punishment by the Bar. I write only to note that the present discipline is justified in part by Knowles' prior suspension by this Court in an earlier disciplinary proceeding. The Florida Bar v. Knowles, No. 68,904 (Fla. Sept. 26, 1986) (order suspending Knowles and holding him in contempt).

THE FLORIDA BAR v. KNOWLES