The Florida Bar v. Arturo Dopazo, III, SC15-1305

In 2015 The Florida Bar charged Arturo Dopazo III with professional misconduct for (1) participating in an illegal patient‑client referral scheme and (2) directly soliciting Penny Jones, a mother whose child was comatose, at a hospital in 2007.
The referee found insufficient clear and convincing evidence that Dopazo participated in the referral scheme, but found he directly solicited Jones in violation of Bar Rule 4-7.18.
Referee credited Jones’s testimony (despite some inconsistencies) that she did not request counsel and that Dopazo approached her at the hospital when she was emotionally vulnerable.
Referee identified aggravating factors (prior solicitation discipline; victim vulnerability) and mitigating factors (undue delay in proceedings; good character/reputation) and recommended a 60‑day suspension and partial cost award.
The Bar sought a longer suspension; Dopazo sought review of the guilt finding. The Supreme Court of Florida approved the referee’s guilt findings but increased the sanction to a one‑year suspension and assessed costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dopazo violated Bar Rule 4‑7.18 by soliciting Jones at the hospital	Bar: Jones was directly solicited while vulnerable; solicitation prohibited	Dopazo: Jones’s testimony inconsistent; claimed agent visited and not him; denied improper solicitation	Court upheld referee: competent, substantial evidence supports finding Dopazo directly solicited Jones
Whether evidence supported involvement in illegal referral scheme	Bar: payments to clinic indicate participation in referral scheme	Dopazo: payments were for letters of protection for client medical services; no "smoking gun"	Referee (approved by Court): Bar failed to prove scheme involvement by clear and convincing evidence
Proper aggravating/mitigating factors	Bar: additional aggravation (selfish motive); challenge to mitigation for delay	Dopazo: argued remoteness of prior offense as mitigation	Court upheld referee’s findings: no selfish motive found; delay mitigating; prior misconduct not remote and not mitigating
Appropriate sanction for unethical solicitation given prior discipline	Bar: more severe suspension (asked two years) warranted due to repeat misconduct and harm to vulnerable victim	Dopazo: argued for lighter sanction (referee’s 60 days)	Court disapproved 60 days and imposed one‑year suspension, citing precedent and incremental discipline for repeat solicitation

Fla. Bar v. Frederick, 756 So. 2d 79 (discusses deference to referee factual findings)
Fla. Bar v. Germain, 957 So. 2d 613 (burden to show no evidence supports referee; mitigation/aggravation review)
Fla. Bar v. Batista, 846 So. 2d 479 (credibility deference to referee)
Fla. Bar v. Anderson, 538 So. 2d 852 (Court’s responsibility to order appropriate sanction)
Fla. Bar v. Temmer, 753 So. 2d 555 (deference to referee’s sanction if reasonable basis exists)
Fla. Bar v. Weinstein, 624 So. 2d 261 (disbarment for hospital solicitation plus deceit)
Fla. Bar v. Wolfe, 759 So. 2d 639 (one‑year suspension for solicitation of disaster victims)
Fla. Bar v. Barrett, 897 So. 2d 1269 (severe sanctions warranted for solicitation of vulnerable victims)
Fla. Bar v. Varner, 992 So. 2d 224 (prior similar misconduct reduces relevance of remoteness as mitigation)