The Florida Bar v. Randall Lawrence Gilbert, 246 So. 3d 196

Gilbert hired Steven Sacks in 2005 despite knowing Sacks had a federal conviction for wire fraud and owed over $7.9 million in restitution; Gilbert did not verify Sacks’ claimed CPA or attorney credentials.
Sacks forged and stole from the firm’s operating account shortly after hire; Gilbert fired then rehired him and later delegated sole responsibility for the firm’s trust account and financial operations to Sacks.
From Feb. 2010–Mar. 2014, Sacks made ~190 thefts totaling about $4.75 million from the firm’s trust account; Old Republic paid over $3.6 million in claims.
Gilbert reviewed bank statements and reconciliations superficially (2–4 minutes/month), failed to detect the scheme, and lied to Sacks’ federal probation officer to conceal the initial theft/rehiring.
Gilbert took remedial steps after discovery: closed trust account, hired forensic accountant, reported thefts, reimbursed ~$1.03 million to victims, sued the bank, and self-reported to The Florida Bar.
The referee found multiple rule violations and recommended a two-year suspension; the Florida Bar sought disbarment, Gilbert sought a shorter suspension. The Supreme Court of Florida approved guilt findings and imposed disbarment.

Issue	The Florida Bar's Argument	Gilbert's Argument	Held
Whether Gilbert violated rules supervising nonlawyer assistants and trust-account duties	Gilbert failed to supervise Sacks, delegated all trust-account duties to a convicted embezzler, causing serious client/third-party harm	Claimed lack of knowledge of thefts and mitigation by restitution/cooperation	Court affirmed violations of supervisory and trust-account rules; found pattern of neglect and serious injury
Whether Gilbert committed dishonesty by lying to probation officer	Gilbert’s lies prevented probation enforcement and contributed to continued thefts; dishonesty aggravates sanction	Argued no obligation to disclose to probation officer; lack of direct misappropriation by Gilbert	Court held the lies were intentional dishonesty in violation of 4-8.4(c) and an aggravating factor
Appropriate sanction: suspension vs disbarment	Disbarment warranted given pattern, duration, magnitude of thefts, and dishonesty	Argued suspension (6–12 months) or at most two years; emphasized mitigation and restitution	Court imposed disbarment, finding mitigation insufficient to outweigh egregiousness and dishonesty
Challenges to specific rule findings (3-4.3, 4-1.3, 4-8.4(c), 5-1.2(b)(6), 5-1.2(c)(1))	Bar maintained referee correctly found violations	Gilbert contested guilt on those rules	Court rejected Gilbert’s challenges and affirmed referee’s findings of guilt

Fla. Bar v. Rousso, 117 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 2013) (disbarment appropriate where lawyer’s conduct involved dishonesty and large embezzlement by a bookkeeper)
Fla. Bar v. Temmer, 753 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 1999) (court gives deference to referee’s discipline recommendations if reasonably supported)
Fla. Bar v. Anderson, 538 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 1989) (Supreme Court reviews referee discipline recommendations to determine appropriate sanction)
Fla. Bar v. Ratiner, 46 So. 3d 35 (Fla. 2010) (standards for reviewing referee sanctions; scope of review)
Fla. Bar v. Hines, 39 So. 3d 1196 (Fla. 2010) (contrast case involving single, promptly discovered misappropriation where suspension, not disbarment, was appropriate)
Fla. Bar v. Lawless, 640 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 1994) (guidance on disciplinary objectives: fairness to society, respondent, and deterrence)