126 So. 3d 244
Fla.2013Background
- Russell S. Adler, admitted 1986, was an attorney and non-equity employee at Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler (RRA); he used the title “Shareholder” but never received equity.
- In 2009 Adler purchased a NYC cooperative apartment financed ~90% by Rothstein-related loans and ~10% via an RRA payroll advance promissory note; he disclosed only the 90% financing to the coop board and concealed the payroll advance loan.
- Adler falsely told a broker and the coop board he held a 20% equity share in RRA and procured a misleading letter from RRA’s CFO at his request to support those misrepresentations.
- As chair of RRA’s tort litigation group, Adler supervised settlement practices in which client closing statements lacked a lawyer signature line and were not executed as required by Rule 4-1.5(f)(5).
- The referee found Adler violated Rules 3-4.3, 4-1.5(f)(5), 4-8.4(a), and 4-8.4(c), recommended guilt and a 30-day suspension; the Florida Bar sought a 91-day suspension. The Court approved guilt but imposed a 91-day suspension and assessed costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Adler’s false statements and soliciting a false firm letter constitute professional misconduct | The Florida Bar: Adler’s misrepresentations and use of a firm letter were dishonest, violating Rules 4-8.4(a) and 4-8.4(c) | Adler did not contest the factual findings or guilt recommendations before the Court | Court affirmed referee’s guilt findings for violations of rules cited and misconduct rules |
| Whether Adler’s department’s failure to execute closing statements violated Rule 4-1.5(f)(5) | Bar: Adler, as supervising partner, failed to ensure required executed closing statements, violating Rule 4-1.5(f)(5) | Adler did not dispute the referee’s factual findings | Court affirmed violation of Rule 4-1.5(f)(5) |
| Appropriate sanction for Adler’s dishonesty and supervisory failures | Bar: 91-day suspension warranted given deliberate deception and harm to profession | Referee recommended 30-day suspension citing some mitigation | Court imposed a 91-day suspension, finding stronger sanction appropriate based on case law and standards |
| Costs and effective date of suspension | Bar sought costs and a delayed effective date to permit client protection | Adler could request immediate effect if not practicing | Court awarded costs and made suspension effective 30 days after opinion unless Adler opts otherwise |
Key Cases Cited
- Fla. Bar v. Nuckolls, 521 So.2d 1120 (Fla. 1988) (ninety-day suspension for active misrepresentations to third parties and breach of trust)
- Fla. Bar v. Schultz, 712 So.2d 386 (Fla. 1998) (dishonesty, misrepresentation, fraud, or deceit warrants suspension)
- Fla. Bar v. Rotstein, 835 So.2d 241 (Fla. 2002) (Court has moved toward stronger sanctions for attorney misconduct)
- Fla. Bar v. Hall, 49 So.3d 1254 (Fla. 2010) (attorneys must conduct personal business with honesty)
- Fla. Bar v. Baker, 810 So.2d 876 (Fla. 2002) (expectation of honesty in attorneys’ personal affairs)