The Florida Bar v. Karl O. Koepke, SC20-286

Background:

Karl O. Koepke, a long‑time Florida lawyer, fell behind on alimony to his ex‑wife while representing a personal‑injury client whose case settled on September 9, 2016.
The divorce court ordered Koepke to produce his fee agreement, settlement correspondence, and any settlement agreement; Koepke provided a redacted retainer but denied the existence of a settlement agreement and initially failed to produce the file.
At trial on the alimony contempt motion, Koepke had to retrieve his client file after being ordered to do so; the court discovered the September 9 settlement agreement and declared a mistrial; Koepke was later convicted of indirect criminal contempt and served 20 days in jail.
Koepke wired $400,000 of his contingency fee to a trust benefiting himself and grandchildren and offered his ex‑wife $100,000 to dismiss pending motions; the Bar charged him with multiple ethics violations and the referee found him guilty.
The referee recommended a one‑year suspension (finding aggravating and mitigating factors) and costs; the Florida Bar sought review and urged disbarment.
The Supreme Court of Florida concluded Koepke’s conduct was intentional, selfish, and severely prejudicial to the administration of justice and ordered disbarment (effective 30 days), plus costs.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Koepke violate the Rules of Professional Conduct and the Oath?	The Florida Bar: Koepke knowingly lied, engaged in deceit, violated discovery orders, and committed criminal conduct reflecting adversely on fitness.	Koepke: (implicitly) disputed severity; argued some actions were not proven deceitful (e.g., joinder to quash) and presented mitigating facts.	Court: Parties do not dispute guilt; the referee’s findings of multiple rule violations were accepted.
Is suspension adequate or is disbarment required?	Bar: Disbarment is warranted given intentional deceit, selfish motive, and serious harm to the proceedings.	Koepke/Referee: Recommended one‑year suspension, citing mitigating factors (no prior discipline, cooperation, reputation).	Court: Disapproved one‑year suspension; disbarment is the appropriate sanction.
Do Standards for Personal Integrity and False Statements (Standards 5.1 & 6.1) require disbarment?	Bar: Intentional misrepresentation causing serious injury presumptively warrants disbarment.	Koepke: Relied on mitigation to avoid presumptive disbarment.	Court: Found intentional misconduct, selfish motive, and serious adverse effects — disbarment under the Standards is appropriate.
Did Koepke’s conduct constitute abuse of the legal process and deceptive conduct (Standards 6.2 & 7.1)?	Bar: Koepke used discovery delay to divert fees to a trust and obstructed truth‑finding, causing substantial court and attorney time.	Koepke: Denied intent to abuse process; emphasized personal/family context and mitigation.	Court: Found knowing violation of court orders, serious interference with proceedings, and deceptive conduct — supports disbarment.

Key Cases Cited

Fla. Bar v. Picon, 205 So. 3d 759 (Fla. 2016) (scope of appellate review of referee discipline recommendations).
Fla. Bar v. Anderson, 538 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 1989) (court’s authority to determine appropriate sanction).
Fla. Bar v. Hall, 49 So. 3d 1254 (Fla. 2010) (disbarment for creating and filing fraudulent documents for personal gain).
Fla. Bar v. Cox, 794 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2001) (disbarment is presumptive for knowingly presenting false testimony; mitigation may reduce sanction).
Fla. Bar v. Hmielewski, 702 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 1997) (serious sanctions where counsel knowingly concealed evidence; lack of selfish motive can mitigate).
Fla. Bar v. Dupee, 160 So. 3d 838 (Fla. 2015) (objectives of attorney discipline: protect public, punish and deter, encourage rehabilitation).
Fla. Bar v. Phoenix, 311 So. 3d 825 (Fla. 2021) (discipline principles and consistency with Standards).
Koepke v. Koepke, 275 So. 3d 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (per curiam affirmance of criminal contempt conviction).