& SC13-389 & SC13-390 The Florida Bar v. Charles Jay Kane, The Florida Bar v. Harley Nathan Kane & The Florida Bar v. Darin James Lentner
202 So. 3d 11
| Fla. | 2016Background
- From 2001–2004 three PIP law firms (Kane & Kane; Watson & Lentner; Marks & Fleischer) and separate "bad faith" attorneys collaborated in pursuing PIP and bad-faith claims against Progressive; they agreed to joint representation and a contingency-fee split for bad-faith litigation.
- Progressive offered an undifferentiated lump-sum settlement; the PIP firms executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and later an Amendment (AMOU) that released both PIP and bad-faith claims and left allocation of proceeds to the firms (no client-level disclosure).
- The PIP firms allocated recovery so that most non‑Goldcoast clients received only unpaid medical bills + interest, while firms kept large fees; bad-faith counsel were excluded from meaningful participation and largely uncompensated.
- The bad-faith attorneys sued for quantum meruit/unjust enrichment and obtained a judgment against Kane & Kane (and against Watson & Lentner’s firm), with findings of ethical misconduct; the trial court forwarded findings to The Florida Bar.
- The Florida Bar charged Charles Jay Kane, Harley Nathan Kane, and Darin James Lentner with multiple Bar Rule violations (conflicts, inadequate client communication, aggregate settlement restrictions, dishonesty, failure to provide closing statements). A referee found guilt and recommended varying suspensions/disbarment.
- The Florida Supreme Court affirmed guilt for all respondents, approved disbarment for Harley Kane, and concluded that Charles Kane and Darin Lentner also warranted disbarment; ordered satisfaction of civil judgment as condition of readmission for the Kanes, and assessed costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bar should be dismissed for prosecutorial misconduct (Stewart's involvement) | Bar acted properly; any misconduct did not prejudice proof of respondent misconduct | Kanes argued Stewart improperly drafted/controlled Bar evidence and prosecution; sought dismissal | Denied — referee did not abuse discretion; some misconduct occurred but not so grave to dismiss; Bar excluded Stewart going forward |
| Whether respondents violated conflict/aggregate-settlement rules (Rules 4-1.7 & 4-1.8(g)) | PIP firms secretly negotiated an undifferentiated aggregate settlement, creating conflicts and abandoning clients’ bad‑faith claims | Respondents claimed limited involvement or that clients retained only PIP representation and received appropriate PIP recoveries | Guilty — settlement was aggregate, created conflicts, firms abandoned bad‑faith claims to increase fees |
| Whether respondents failed to communicate material information and engaged in dishonesty (Rules 4-1.4, 4-8.4, 3-4.3) | Respondents withheld settlement amounts, allocation, value of bad‑faith claims, and misled clients and bad‑faith counsel | Respondents argued confidentiality and limited engagement barred full disclosures; disputed factual culpability | Guilty — respondents withheld material facts, sent misleading communications, and acted dishonestly/deceptively in allocating proceeds |
| Appropriate sanction (suspension vs disbarment) | Bar sought disbarment for all given pattern, multiple aggravators, client/system harm | Respondents sought lesser sanctions (suspension), argued differing involvement and limited client harm | Disbarment imposed for all three (Harley Kane affirmed; Charles Kane and Lentner elevated from referee’s recommended suspensions) — aggravating factors outweighed mitigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Fla. Bar v. St. Louis, 967 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 2007) (disbarment for secret fee arrangements and nondisclosure to clients)
- Fla. Bar v. Temmer, 753 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 1999) (review standard for referee discipline recommendations)
- Fla. Bar v. Frederick, 756 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 2000) (referee findings reviewed for competent, substantial evidence)
- Fla. Bar v. Rubin, 362 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1978) (Bar must prosecute disciplinary cases fairly)
- Application of Harper, 84 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1956) (disciplinary proceedings protect public interest, not private rights)