Florida Bar v. Knowles
99 So. 3d 918
| Fla. | 2012Background
- Respondent Petia Dimitrova Knowles is a Florida attorney who was suspended previously by order dated January 17, 2012; the current referee recommended a ninety-day suspension for professional misconduct.
- The Florida Bar filed June 3, 2010, alleging violations including 4-1.3, 4-1.6, 4-3.3, 4-8.4(c), and 4-8.4(d) related to immigration and civil matter representations.
- The referee found Knowles committed improper withdrawal motions and disparaging statements about her client in two motions to withdraw, and improper handling of confidential materials.
- The referee concluded Knowles violated 4-8.4(d) but found no violation of 4-1.6 or other rules, and recommended a ninety-day suspension with ethics and professionalism requirements.
- The Bar challenged the 4-1.6 finding and the ninety-day discipline, arguing for a harsher sanction; the Court approved the 4-8.4(d) finding but imposed a one-year suspension, displacing the referee’s discipline.
- The Court noted aggravating factors (pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, victim vulnerability, pending discipline) and mitigating factor (absence of prior disciplinary record) and cited Knowles’s prior reprimand in a separate case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Knowles violated Rule 4-1.6 confidentiality | Bar: confidentiality violated by disclosure to the Assistant State Attorney. | Knowles: exception for preventing crime justified disclosure. | Knowles violated 4-1.6; referee’s not-guilty finding reversed. |
| Whether Knowles’ disclosures and actions violated Rule 4-8.4(d) | Bar: motions disparaged client and prejudiced justice. | Knowles: actions within professional duties? | Knowles violated 4-8.4(d); findings sustained. |
| Appropriate sanction for Knowles’ misconduct | Bar: discipline should reflect egregious misconduct and prior reprimand. | Referee: ninety-day suspension; Florida Standards support rehabilitative sanction. | Court imposes one-year suspension, superseding referee; requires ethics/professionalism training. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lange v. State Bar, 711 So.2d 518 (Fla. 1998) (confidentiality violations support substantial sanctions when disclosures occur)
- Morgan v. Florida Bar, 938 So.2d 496 (Fla. 2006) (rehabilitative suspension for multiple rule violations including 4-8.4(d))
- Hagendorf v. Florida Bar, 921 So.2d 611 (Fla. 2006) (4-8.4(d) is a serious violation justifying suspension)
- Bailey v. Florida Bar, 803 So.2d 683 (Fla. 2001) (illustrates complete abdication of duty when disparaging client in ex parte communications)
- Vining v. Florida Bar, 761 So.2d 1044 (Fla. 2000) (cumulation and prior misconduct to determine sanction)
- Ratiner v. Florida Bar, 46 So.3d 85 (Fla. 2010) (scope of review for sanctions is broader than factual findings)
- Temmer v. Florida Bar, 753 So.2d 555 (Fla. 1999) (sanctions standards for professional misconduct)
- Shoureas v. Florida Bar, 913 So.2d 554 (Fla. 2005) (referee findings must support guilt recommendations)
- Spann v. Florida Bar, 682 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 1996) (evidence sufficiency for disciplinary recommendations)
- Bloom v. Florida Bar, 632 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 1994) (discipline benchmarks for rules 4-8.4 and related misconduct)
- Bailey, Bailey, v. Florida Bar, 803 So.2d 683 (Fla. 2001) (exemplary misconduct leading to harsher sanctions)