Florida Bar v. Lobasz, 64 So. 3d 1167

The referee found Lobasz guilty of indirect contempt for practicing law while suspended and recommended a three-year suspension nunc pro tunc to April 10, 2008, plus costs; Florida Bar sought review.
On March 7, 2008, the Court suspended Lobasz for three years; in June 2008 the Bar filed a contempt petition alleging he appeared at an immigration hearing for a former client after suspension.
The matter was referred to a referee who found Lobasz actively participated in the April 10, 2008 immigration hearing, addressing the court and conducting a direct examination of the client, Gaspar-Martinez.
Lobasz’s suspension took effect April 7, 2008; during the thirty-day close-out he transferred many cases to Cahill and accompanied Cahill at the hearing to assist as needed.
At the hearing, neither Cahill nor the court were informed of Lobasz’s suspension; the Bar alleged misconduct included advising and aiding in the client’s deportation hearing.
The Florida Bar petitioned for review arguing improper mitigation testimony, lack of conscious intent to violate the order, and an improper sanction; the referee recommended three years’ suspension concurrent with prior discipline and costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the referee abused discretion admitting mitigation evidence	Bar waived objections to mitigation testimony; contested admission due to nondisclosure	Referee has broad discretion to admit relevant evidence; discovery rules apply but not to bar all mitigation	No abuse of discretion; testimony supported mitigating factors
Whether findings show Lobasz lacked conscious intent to violate the suspension	Bar contends no mitigating intent proven; intent necessary for contempt	Record supports mitigating mental-state factors; intent found in context	Record supports mitigating factors; lack of conscious intent sustained
Whether disbarment is the appropriate sanction for contempt	Bar seeks reaffirmation of sanctions or harsher discipline	Philosophical and statutory framework allows disbarment for clear suspension violation absent extenuating factors	Disbarment imposed; presumption favors disbarment with weak extenuating factors

Fla. Bar v. Brown, 635 So.2d 13 (Fla. 1994) (clear violation of suspension generally disbarment absent strong extenuating factors)
Fla. Bar v. Bitterman, 33 So.3d 686 (Fla. 2010) (suspend[ed] attorney in contempt for engaging in practice; disbarment)
Fla. Bar v. D'Ambrosio, 25 So.3d 1209 (Fla. 2009) (contempt case; disbarment for practice during suspension)
Fla. Bar v. Temmer, 753 So.2d 555 (Fla. 1999) (scope of reviewing sanctions; deference to referee findings with standards)
Fla. Bar v. Frederick, 756 So.2d 79 (Fla. 2000) (limits on reweighing referee’s factual findings)
Fla. Bar v. Daniel, 626 So.2d 178 (Fla. 1993) (discovery rules apply in referee proceedings where not inconsistent with Bar rules)