Florida Bar v. Doherty, 94 So. 3d 443

Doherty, a Florida attorney and former financial advisor, was found to have simultaneously provided legal and financial services to an elderly client.
He amended the client’s will and established trusts while brokering annuity sales that would yield him commissions.
A debt to Conseco related to prior commissions influenced Doherty’s financial handling of the client’s transactions.
The referee found Doherty held multiple roles for the client (estate planner, trustee, personal representative, financial product salesperson) without written disclosures.
The transactions were found to create a substantial risk of conflict of interest, violating rule 4-1.7 and, specifically, rule 4-1.8(a) due to failure to disclose a financial interest.
Doherty sought review, challenging only the 4-1.8(a) finding and the disbarment sanction; the Court affirmed guilt on 4-1.7 and sustained 4-1.8(a) guilt, disbarring Doherty.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether annuity sales constitute a business transaction needing disclosure	Doherty contends not a business transaction.	But Doherty’s role as advisor-triggering rule 4-1.8(a) applies.	Yes; annuity sales are a business transaction under 4-1.8(a).
Whether Doherty violated rule 4-1.8(a) by not disclosing adverse interest	Doherty disputes the extent of the disclosures.	Doherty failed to provide required written disclosures.	Guilty; failure to disclose requisite written disclosures established.
Whether the court should impose disbarment given egregious misconduct and aggravation	Disbarment warranted by conflict, business transaction, and aggravating factors.	Disbarment too harsh; prefer lesser sanction.	Disbarment affirmed as appropriate sanction.

Fla. Bar v. Herman, 8 So.3d 1100 (Fla. 2009) (discusses scope of 4-1.8(a) and broad reach of the rule)
Fla. Bar v. Ticktin, 14 So.3d 928 (Fla. 2009) (conflict rule involving client interests in business transactions)
Fla. Bar v. Kramer, 593 So.2d 1040 (Fla. 1992) (example of 4-1.8(a) application in a complex transaction)
Fla. Bar v. Rodriguez, 959 So.2d 150 (Fla. 2007) (egregious misconduct where personal interests conflicted with client)
Fla. Bar v. Jasperson, 625 So.2d 459 (Fla. 1993) (suspension for conflict-related misconduct)
Fla. Bar v. Hermann, Fla. Bar v. Herman (2009) (see Herman; included for 4-1.8(a) discussion)
Fla. Bar v. Frederick, 756 So.2d 79 (Fla. 2000) (standard of review for referee factual findings)
Fla. Bar v. Temmer, 753 So.2d 555 (Fla. 1999) (sanctions standards guidance)
Fla. Bar v. Germain, 957 So.2d 613 (Fla. 2007) (mitigation/ aggravation presumption of correctness applied to referee rulings)