The Florida Bar v. Jean M. Picon
205 So. 3d 759
| Fla. | 2016Background
- The Florida Bar charged attorney Jean M. Picon with professional misconduct based on repeated failures to appear timely (or at all) in three criminal matters (State v. Smith; State v. Jennings; State v. Richardson), misfiling a pretrial motion late, and providing incorrect information to a court.
- Consequences of Picon’s conduct included a contempt proceeding (fine, community service, and apology letters) and a bench warrant that led to a client’s five-day incarceration.
- A referee found Picon violated Rules 4-1.1 (competence), 4-1.3 (diligence), 4-3.4(c) (knowingly disobeying tribunal rules), and 4-8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice); recommended a 91-day suspension and bar costs of $6,699.01.
- Picon challenged the sufficiency of the referee’s report, certain guilt findings, and the recommended discipline; the Court stayed on its own motion and ordered Picon suspended pending resolution.
- The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the referee’s findings of fact and guilt on all rules, rejected Picon’s sufficiency and preservation arguments, but increased discipline to a one-year suspension (effective nunc pro tunc to July 30, 2016) based on repeated client neglect and prior discipline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of referee’s report | Report reflects independent review and supports findings | Referee merely adopted Bar’s proposed report verbatim; lacked on-the-record findings | Court: referee exercised independent judgment; report sufficient |
| Guilt under Rule 4-1.3 & 4-8.4(d) (diligence; prejudicial conduct) | Bar: failures to appear and calendar mismanagement violated these rules and harmed clients | Picon did not contest these factual findings | Court: approved findings and guilt on these rules |
| Guilt under Rule 4-1.1 & 4-3.4(c) (competence; knowingly disobeying tribunal) | Bar: pattern of neglect and knowing disobedience (missed deadlines/orders) | Picon: conduct did not show lack of competence or was not knowing | Court: approved guilt — neglect supports 4-1.1; admissions and facts support knowing violation of 4-3.4(c) |
| Discipline severity | Bar: more severe sanction warranted given pattern and prior discipline | Referee proposed 91-day suspension; Picon sought review | Court: 91 days too lenient given cumulative misconduct and prior sanctions; imposed one-year suspension |
Key Cases Cited
- Fla. Bar v. Barrett, 897 So. 2d 1269 (referee may adopt party’s proposed report if independent decision-making appears)
- Fla. Bar v. Cramer, 678 So. 2d 1278 (same principle regarding adoption of report)
- Fla. Bar v. Frederick, 756 So. 2d 79 (appellate review limited to whether referee’s factual findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence)
- Fla. Bar v. Jordan, 705 So. 2d 1387 (same standard of review for referee findings)
- Fla. Bar v. Shoureas, 913 So. 2d 554 (neglect of client matters can violate Rule 4-1.1)
- Fla. Bar v. Centurion, 801 So. 2d 858 (failure to attend to client matters and comply with court order violated Rule 4-1.1)
- Fla. Bar v. Committe, 136 So. 3d 1111 (definitions of "knowingly" in professional conduct context)
- Fla. Bar v. Cimbler, 840 So. 2d 955 (one-year suspension for multiple acts of client neglect and prior discipline)
- Fla. Bar v. Gass, 153 So. 3d 886 (one-year suspension where neglect produced bench warrants and client incarceration)
- Fla. Bar v. Walkden, 950 So. 2d 407 (cumulative misconduct of similar nature warrants increased discipline)
- Fla. Bar v. Temmer, 753 So. 2d 555 (court will not second-guess referee if discipline has reasonable basis in law/standards)
- Fla. Bar v. Anderson, 538 So. 2d 852 (court’s responsibility to order appropriate sanction)
- Fla. Bar v. Roberts, 689 So. 2d 1049 (seriousness of failing to represent zealously and communicate effectively)