THE FLORIDA BAR v. CHOSID

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 68157.

Attorney(S)

John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director and John T. Berry, Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, and Jacquelyn Plasner Needelman, Bar Counsel, Fort Lauderdale, for complainant. Richard G. Chosid, Fort Lauderdale, in pro per.

Judges

Raymond Ehrlich

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This disciplinary proceeding arises from a complaint filed by The Florida Bar against respondent Richard G. Chosid. The respondent pled guilty to a felony charge of making and subscribing a false income tax return, a violation of federal law. The referee found respondent guilty of multiple violations of The Florida Bar's rules and recommended a three-year suspension beginning November 1, 1984, continuing until respondent proves rehabilitation. The Florida Bar sought disbarment for a period of three years starting from the effective date of the felony conviction, April 24, 1985. The Supreme Court of Florida considered the referee's report and the Bar's recommendation in this matter.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether respondent violated specific provisions of The Florida Bar's Integration Rule and Code of Professional Responsibility based on his felony conviction.
The appropriate disciplinary sanction for respondent's misconduct, specifically whether to impose suspension or disbarment.
The effective date and duration of the disciplinary sanction in relation to the respondent's felony conviction and rehabilitation.

Arguments of the Parties

The Florida Bar's Arguments

Respondent committed serious professional misconduct by pleading guilty to a felony involving making and subscribing a false income tax return.
The Bar contends that the appropriate sanction is disbarment for a period of three years starting from April 24, 1985, the effective date of the felony conviction.
The Bar views the offense as involving moral turpitude and requiring the strongest disciplinary response to uphold the integrity of the legal profession.

Respondent's Position

Respondent appeared pro se and did not present specific arguments in the provided opinion.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
The Florida Bar Re: Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, 494 So.2d 977 (Fla. 1986)	Minimum period for disbarment increased to five years effective January 1, 1987.	Referenced in dissent to emphasize the gravity of disbarment and its deterrent effect compared to suspension.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged its jurisdiction and reviewed the referee's findings that respondent violated multiple rules of The Florida Bar based on his felony guilty plea for filing a false income tax return. The referee recommended a three-year suspension beginning November 1, 1984, continuing until rehabilitation is proven. The Florida Bar argued for disbarment starting from the felony conviction date, April 24, 1985.

The court approved the referee's report but modified the suspension start date to April 24, 1985, aligning it with the effective date of the felony conviction. The court emphasized the necessity of rehabilitation before reinstatement. The dissenting opinion argued for disbarment, reasoning that the felony involved moral turpitude and theft from the government, warranting the strongest disciplinary sanction. The dissent also highlighted the difference between suspension and disbarment, particularly the procedural and reputational consequences associated with disbarment.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Supreme Court of Florida adopted the referee's recommendation of a three-year suspension for respondent Richard G. Chosid, commencing April 24, 1985, and continuing until respondent proves rehabilitation. The court ordered respondent to pay costs of $365.53.

Implications: This decision suspends respondent from practicing law for a significant period tied to his felony conviction and rehabilitation status. The court declined to impose disbarment, thus allowing for eventual reinstatement upon proof of rehabilitation. No new precedent was established; the ruling enforces existing disciplinary standards in response to felony convictions involving dishonesty and moral turpitude.

Show full summary ...

THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT, v. RICHARD G. CHOSID, RESPONDENT.

PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary proceeding is before us on complaint of The Florida Bar and the report of the referee. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.

The referee recommends that respondent be found guilty of violating article XI, Rule 11.02 of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, and Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(1), 1-102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), and 1-102(A)(6) of The Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility. These violations arose from respondent's guilty plea to the felony charge of making and subscribing a false income tax return. The referee recommended a three-year suspension, beginning November 1, 1984, and thereafter until respondent proves his rehabilitation. The Bar contends that the disciplinary sanction should be disbarment for a period of three years from April 24, 1985, the effective date of respondent's felony conviction.

We approve the referee's report, but find that, under these circumstances, the discipline must be a three-year suspension beginning April 24, 1985, and thereafter until respondent proves his rehabilitation. Judgment for costs in the amount of $365.53 is hereby entered against respondent, for which sum let execution issue.

It is so ordered.

ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur.

EHRLICH, J., dissents with opinion with which McDONALD, C.J., concurs.

EHRLICH, Justice, dissenting.

Respondent was indicted by a grand jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, on five felony charges. The charges concerned the importing and distributing of marijuana and the concealment of monies from this operation for income tax purposes. Pursuant to a plea agreement, he pled guilty to one count of a five-count indictment, making and subscribing a false individual income tax return in violation of Title 26 Section 7206(1) United States Code. The court accepted the guilty plea and adjudicated respondent guilty of a felony and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment for a period of two years and ordered him to pay a committed fine of $5,000.

The statute provides that any person who "willfully makes and subscribes any return, statement, or other document, which contains or is verified by written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, and which he does not believe to be true and correct as to every material fact" shall be guilty of a felony.

Respondent has a history of prior discipline from The Florida Bar, albeit it was a minor one. He received a grievance level private reprimand growing out of charges of conflict of interest.

The referee recommended a three-year suspension. The Florida Bar has asked that respondent be disbarred for a period of three years from the effective date of his felony suspension. I agree with the bar's position.

I view respondent's offense as a very serious one. In making and subscribing a false income tax return, he has committed an act of perjury and he is guilty of conduct involving moral turpitude. His motivation for the crime was pecuniary gain by understating his taxable income. In short, this was stealing from the government. I do not believe that the identity of the victim of the theft should make a difference in the gravity of the offense and the bar discipline that should be imposed. If this theft had involved a client or a business associate or a member of the public, anyone except the government, I do not think there would be any question but that disbarment would be viewed as the appropriate discipline. But since the victim of the theft is the government and the medium of the theft is a false income tax return, the Court apparently does not view the facts with the same gravity as if it were some other kind of theft from some more animate victim. I cannot draw this distinction. A crime for pecuniary gain, theft by whatever name, by a member of The Florida Bar, an officer of the Court, is to be roundly condemned and disbarment is the appropriate response from this Court.

I appreciate that a three-year suspension may be looked upon as the functional equivalent of disbarment since the period during which the respondent is not permitted to practice is basically the same. The difference is this, and in my opinion it is major: In disbarment the offender has to apply for readmission and must establish to the satisfaction of the Florida Board of Bar Examiners that he is rehabilitated and must establish legal competence by successfully taking The Florida Bar examination. Perhaps of more importance is the opprobrium of disbarment which is a cogent factor in the matter of deterence.

Effective January 1, 1987, the minimum period for disbarment has been increased to five years. The Florida Bar Re: Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, 494 So.2d 977 (Fla. 1986).

Respondent has been convicted of a felony and has served time in prison. Anything less than disbarment can be looked upon as an abdication by this Court of its responsibilities in the supervision of an arm of this Court, The Florida Bar.

For these reasons, I dissent.

McDONALD, C.J., concurs.