1 Supreme Court of Florida No. SC THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, vs. NOAH DANIEL LIBERMAN, Respondent. [August 26, 2010] PER CURIAM. We have for review a referee s report recommending that the Court accept respondent s unconditional guilty plea and consent judgment for discipline, suspending respondent from The Florida Bar for three years. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, 15, Fla. Const. As more fully explained below, after consideration of the referee s report, the guilty plea and consent judgment, and the parties joint response to the Court s order to show cause why respondent should not be disbarred, we disapprove the proposed sanction of a three-year suspension and disbar respondent effective, nunc pro tunc, July 3, 2006.
2 On March 30, 2006, respondent Noah Daniel Liberman pleaded guilty and was adjudicated guilty of one first-degree felony count of trafficking in the drug known as Ecstasy (ten grams or more but less than 200 grams). Due to this felony conviction, he was, on July 3, 2006, automatically suspended from The Florida Bar pursuant to Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 3-7.2(e), in case number SC He has remained suspended since that time. After the automatic felony suspension was imposed, The Florida Bar filed a complaint against respondent, alleging that based on his felony conviction he violated Rules Regulating the Florida Bar 3-4.3, providing that the commission by a lawyer of any act that is unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice, whether the act is committed in the course of the attorney s relations as an attorney or otherwise, whether committed within or outside the state of Florida, and whether or not the act is a felony or misdemeanor, may constitute a cause for discipline, and 4-8.4(b), providing that a lawyer shall not commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects. As noted, the respondent and the Bar have submitted and the referee has recommended that the Court accept an unconditional guilty plea and consent judgment for discipline suspending respondent for three years effective, nunc pro tunc, July 3, The referee s report recites the following facts stipulated in the guilty plea and consent judgment: - 2 -
3 Respondent, Noah Daniel Liberman, was a young attorney who was primarily, if not exclusively, involved in civil litigation. He also had an illness; he was a drug addict and was severely addicted to the drugs methamphetamine and M.D.M.A. (ecstasy). For years prior to his arrest, drugs controlled his life. The use of the drugs led to he and his friends pooling their funds to purchase the drugs in greater quantity for a volume discount and then the drugs being distributed among his friends. During this time period one of his friends, a fellow addict, was arrested for a drug offense and began working undercover for Coral Gables Police Department in conjunction with the Miami Beach Police [D]epartment and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) unbeknownst to Respondent. For a period of approximately six weeks in 2004, this confidential source purchased small quantities of either methamphetamine or M.D.M.A. from Respondent on four (4) occasions as follows: (1) On February 16, 2004, 1 gram of methamphetamine. (2) On February 24, 2004, 2 grams of methamphetamine and 2 M.D.M.A. Ecstasy pills. (3) On March 9, 2004, 1 gram of Methamphetamine (4) On April 5, 2004, 2 grams of Methamphetamine. The confidential source then requested that Respondent obtain an amount of the drug M.D.M.A. that far exceeded that which was usual or customary for Respondent to have in his possession. Once the confidential source was confident that Respondent had the requested drugs in his possession, the police were notified and raided Respondent s home finding a trafficking amount of the drug M.D.M.A. Subsequently, Respondent entered into a plea agreement with the Office of the State Attorney and pled guilty. On or about March 30, 2006, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of one felony count of Phenethylamine/Ecstasy/Trafficking of 10 Grams or more but less than 200 Grams.... Since that time he has cooperated with authorities, served a short sentence in county jail over weekends only, served six months on community control, and successfully completed his probation
4 The referee also found and considered the following mitigating factors: (1) respondent did not have a prior disciplinary record; (2) he lacked a dishonest or selfish motive; (3) he made a timely good-faith effort to rectify the consequences of his misconduct; (4) he made a full and free disclosure to the disciplinary board and had a cooperative attitude toward the proceeding; (5) he was inexperienced in the practice of law; (6) he otherwise had a good reputation and character; (7) he had a physical or mental disability or impairment; (8) he participated in an interim rehabilitation program; (9) other penalties or sanctions were imposed on him; (10) he showed remorse for his actions; and (11) he was involved in ongoing supervised rehabilitation under Florida Lawyer s Assistance, Inc. The referee considered one aggravating factor respondent s pattern of misconduct. On January 8, 2010, after considering the referee s report, we directed the parties to show cause why the recommended sanction should not be disapproved and why harsher sanctions, including disbarment, should not be imposed. The Bar and respondent filed a joint response to the order to show cause, contending that in light of the mitigating circumstances in this case, a three-year suspension is appropriate. We disagree. As acknowledged by the parties, under Standard for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 5.11, the presumptive discipline for an attorney convicted of a felony is disbarment. The burden is on the attorney to overcome this presumption. Fla. Bar - 4 -
5 v. McKeever, 766 So. 2d 992, 993 (Fla. 2000). Here, despite the presence of substantial mitigation, we conclude that a lesser sanction is not justified. The Bar and respondent point to multiple cases where we have imposed lengthy suspensions in cases involving felony convictions where substantial mitigation, including drug and alcohol addiction, was shown. See, e.g., Fla. Bar v. Del Pino, 955 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 2007) (recognizing cases where a respondent s drug addiction caused or contributed to the felonious conduct and resulted in suspension instead of disbarment); Fla. Bar v. Hochman, 815 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 2002) (suspending attorney for three years where attorney pled no contest to felony grand theft and mitigating evidence included drug and alcohol addiction); Fla. Bar v. Marcus, 616 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 1993) (suspending attorney for three years after conviction of felony for misappropriating client funds where cocaine addiction was directly and causally linked to misconduct); Fla. Bar v. Corbin, 540 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 1989) (suspending attorney for three years after conviction of attempted sexual battery on a child where substantial mitigation included voluntarily entering and completing residential alcohol treatment program); Fla. Bar v. Jahn, 509 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 1987) (suspending attorney for three years after conviction for delivery of cocaine to a minor and possession of cocaine where drug addiction was one of several mitigating factors); Fla. Bar v. Rosen, 495 So. 2d 180, 181 (Fla. 1986) (suspending attorney for three years after conviction for possession of - 5 -
6 cocaine with intent to distribute, where addiction was found to be the prime force behind his felony conviction ). Of these cases, only Rosen involved drug trafficking. In Rosen, the attorney had become increasingly addicted to free-base cocaine, so much so that he voluntarily closed his law practice because he could no longer serve his clients. Rosen, 495 So. 2d at 181. Subsequently, he continued to withdraw into the nightmarish netherworld of cocaine addiction until he finally became involved in drug trafficking. Id. In contrast, here there was no showing that respondent was essentially incapacitated by his addiction. We have not hesitated in the past to disbar Florida attorneys with felony convictions involving drug trafficking. See Fla. Bar v. Hecker, 475 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 1985) (disbarring attorney who pled guilty to criminal conspiracy to traffic in 1000 pounds of cannabis); Fla. Bar v. Wilson, 425 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 1983) (disbarring attorney convicted of solicitation to traffic in cocaine and attempted trafficking in cocaine). Given the gravity of respondent s offense, we conclude that disbarment effective, nunc pro tunc, July 3, 2006, is the appropriate sanction in light of the criteria previously enunciated by this Court in Florida Bar v. Pahules, 233 So. 2d 130, 132 (Fla. 1970): the sanction must be (1) fair to the disciplined attorney, being sufficient to punish while at the same time encouraging rehabilitation; (2) fair to society, both in terms of protecting the public from unethical conduct and at the - 6 -
7 same time not denying the public the service of a qualified lawyer as a result of undue harshness; and (3) severe enough to deter others who might be tempted to engage in like violations. See also Fla. Bar v. St. Louis, 967 So. 2d 108, 124 (Fla. 2007) (discussing Pahules criteria). Disbarment of an attorney convicted of a serious felony offense cannot be interpreted as unfair to him. Illegal behavior involving moral turpitude demonstrates intentional disregard for the very laws an attorney is bound to uphold. Disbarment under these circumstances also serves best to encourage rehabilitation and to protect the public in that it ensures respondent may be readmitted only upon full compliance with the rules and regulations governing admissions to the Bar. Finally, we conclude that only disbarment can measure up to the gravity of a conviction for illegal drug trafficking and serve as a sufficient deterrent for others who might be tempted to engage in similar illegal activity. Although we do not find that the mitigating circumstances present in this case are sufficient to overcome the presumption of disbarment for a felony conviction, we do find that such mitigation is sufficient to justify making the order of disbarment effective, nunc pro tunc, to the date respondent was automatically suspended due to the felony conviction. Accordingly, Noah Daniel Liberman is hereby disbarred effective, nunc pro tunc, July 3, Judgment is entered for The Florida Bar, 651 East Jefferson - 7 -
8 Street, Tallahassee, Florida , for recovery of costs from Noah Daniel Liberman in the amount of $1,858.22, for which sum let execution issue. It is so ordered. CANADY, C.J., and LEWIS, POLSTON, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur. PARIENTE, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in which QUINCE, J., concurs. THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DISBARMENT. PARIENTE, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. I would approve the referee s recommendation of a three-year suspension, as urged by The Florida Bar and agreed to by the respondent. Since respondent s drug crimes, which occurred over six years ago, he has led a drug-free and exemplary existence. Although respondent pled guilty to the serious offense of drug trafficking, the overwhelming evidence in this case demonstrates that his misconduct stemmed from a severe addiction to drugs, did not arise from the practice of law, and resulted in no client harm. There are other strong mitigating factors in this case that, when coupled with respondent s addiction, weigh heavily in favor of a three-year suspension rather than disbarment. For example, when charged with this crime, respondent immediately assumed responsibility for his actions. This factor was critical to the determination by the State Attorney s Office during plea negotiations that a - 8 -
9 sentence of six months of house arrest and six months of jail on the weekends was appropriate far below the mandatory minimum requirement for the first-degree felony drug trafficking charge. The assistant state attorney testified that the mandatory minimum requirement was reduced in respondent s case because it didn t seem... like he was a street trafficker. He accepted responsibility. He went into rehab immediately. He was drug tested routinely and was always negative. Further, since the time of his own arrest and plea agreement, respondent has lived an exemplary existence as found by the referee: While his acceptance of responsibility and cooperation with the investigation and legal process is commendable, his resolve to turn his life around is impressive. Since the time of his arrest, nearly five and 1/2 years ago, Mr. Liberman has remained drug free (clean date is April 7, 2004). Over the past 3 1/2 years he has been a productive member of society working, continuing to contribute to the legal industry as a paralegal. He has also been a benefit to the community, initially volunteering as a tutor at Camillus House and now supervising the tutoring program and volunteering as a member of the Board of the Camillus House Young Leaders. When determining the appropriate sanction, this Court should also consider the mitigating fact that respondent s crime, while serious, did not arise from the practice of law and resulted in no client harm. For example, this case stands in marked contrast to cases in which we have disbarred attorneys whose substance abuse and addiction contributed to misappropriation of funds or abandonment of clients. See Fla. Bar v. Valentine-Miller, 974 So. 2d 333, 338 (Fla. 2008) ( This - 9 -
10 Court has disbarred attorneys who misappropriated funds or abandoned their clients, despite the referees findings of substance abuse and rehabilitation, concluding that the mitigation was insufficient to overcome the seriousness of the misconduct. ) (citing Fla. Bar v. Prevatt, 609 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1992); Fla. Bar v. Shuminer, 567 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1990); Fla. Bar v. Golub, 550 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 1989); Fla. Bar v. Rodriguez, 489 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1986); Fla. Bar v. Setien, 530 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 1988)). In this case, there is no evidence of any client harm or any indication that respondent s addiction or crime impacted his performance as an attorney. The majority distinguishes this case from Florida Bar v. Rosen, 495 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1986), but in fact the circumstances are very similar. Like the attorney in Rosen, at the time of his arrest, respondent was heavily addicted to and impaired by drugs, specifically crystal methamphetamine. In Rosen, we explained: The referee s findings of fact, we believe, well support the recommendation of suspension rather than disbarment. First, the referee found that [t]he respondent s involvement in the crime for which he pleaded guilty was a result of his own addiction to cocaine at the time, and that respondent s addiction was the prime force behind his felony conviction. 495 So. 2d at 181. Similarly, in this case, respondent s addiction directly contributed to his conduct. As found by the referee when comparing the instant case to Rosen, [r]espondent also slid into deep and mind altering addiction and it was the addiction that caused the actions that led to his arrest
11 I understand that respondent pled guilty to a drug trafficking crime. However, when looking at the actual substance of the charges for this crime, which occurred over six years ago, it is not comparable to the trafficking crimes at issue in Hecker and Wilson, which are relied on by the majority. In Hecker, the attorney pled guilty to criminal conspiracy to traffic in 1000 pounds of cannabis. 475 So. 2d at Here, respondent s crime involved 270 Ecstasy pills, totaling 37.7 grams. In Wilson, the attorney pressured one of his clients who was incarcerated in jail to make arrangements to have one and a half pounds of cocaine delivered to the attorney. 425 So. 2d at 2. In this case, respondent s drug trafficking crime resulted from the request of a fellow addict and friend, who was working undercover after having been arrested. I also emphasize that, even if we were to accept the recommendation of a three-year suspension, this would not be a guarantee of reinstatement. Demonstrating rehabilitation is a very heavy burden to meet, especially in cases with the added concern of addiction. Finally, to the extent the majority attempts to lessen the severity of the sanction of disbarment by finding that the mitigation is sufficient to justify making the order of disbarment effective, nunc pro tunc, to the date respondent was automatically suspended, I note that when this Court suspends an attorney, the suspension is usually effective, nunc pro tunc, to the date of original suspension
12 In light of the foregoing, and because it has been over six years since the offense and respondent has lived an exemplary and drug-free existence for those six years, I would accept the referee s strong recommendation, joined by The Florida Bar, that we approve the three-year suspension. QUINCE, J., concurs. Original Proceedings The Florida Bar John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, Kenneth Lawrence Marvin, Staff Counsel, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida, and William Mulligan, Bar Counsel, The Florida Bar, Miami, Florida, for Complainant Richard Baron of Richard Baron and Associates, Miami, Florida, for Respondent
Supreme Court of Florida PER CURIAM. No. SC11-2500 THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, vs. EUGENE KEITH POLK, Respondent. [November 14, 2013] We have for review a referee s report recommending that Respondent
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2015 WI 38 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: 2014AP2906-D In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jon Evenson, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v.
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC14-759 THE FLORIDA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS RE: J.R.B. [November 20, 2014] PER CURIAM. The Florida Board of Bar Examiners ( Board ) has filed a Report and Recommendation regarding
03/01/2013 "See News Release 012 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 12-B-2701 IN RE: MARK LANE JAMES, II ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM This disciplinary
-tiw~~ "'~ "" NORTH CAROLIN i;;" of. ~ BEFORE THE WAKE COUNTY 1:::::, c! P 201.@IS~'L1NARY HEARING COMMISSION ~ v~ji..s,=-= OF THE ~ DJ.jC D N J TH CAROLINA STATE BAR,~\ ~ 09 DHC 5 >?1/ 11 /?,., l C\ c:,,;/,
10/31/2014 "See News Release 054 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 14-B-1695 IN RE: WILLIAM HARRELL ARATA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM This disciplinary
11/20/2009 "See News Release 073 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 09-B-1795 IN RE: DEBORAH HARKINS BAER ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM * This disciplinary
FINAL COPY 295 Ga. 853 S14Y1458. IN THE MATTER OF RAND J. CSEHY. PER CURIAM. Rand J. Csehy (State Bar No. 604410) pled nolo contendere to two counts of possession of controlled substances, OCGA 16-13-30,
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2014 WI 48 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Geneva E. McKinley, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Geneva
2005 WI 102 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2005AP838-D COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Joseph Engl, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v.
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2012 WI 123 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Thomas E. Bielinski, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Thomas
2012 WI 48 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: 2011AP778-D In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Aaron J. Rollins, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant,
Supreme Court of Louisiana FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #031 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Per Curiams handed down on the 27th day of May, 2016, are as follows: PER CURIAM: 2016-B
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2014 WI 2 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Steven T. Berman, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Steven T.
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2012 WI 122 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Naomi E. Soldon, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Naomi E.
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES COMMISSION ON BAR DISCIPLINE GUIDELINES FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS A. PURPOSE AND NATURE OF SANCTIONS 1.1 Purpose of Lawyer Discipline Proceedings The purpose of lawyer
0 1 No- 76,451 THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, vs. \JC)FIN ROBERT FORBES, Respondent. [April. 9, 19921 rrm CURIAM. This is a disciplinary proceeding in which John Robert T7f)r1ws pel-itions this Court to
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Peter Tom, Justice Presiding, Angela M. Mazzarelli Eugene Nardelli Luis A. Gonzalez Bernard J. Malone, Jr., Justices. ---------------------------------------x
People v. J. Bryan Larson. 13PDJ031. October 18, 2013. Following a sanctions hearing, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred J. Bryan Larson (Attorney Registration Number 31822). The disbarment took
Supreme Court of Florida THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2013 FLORIDA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS RE: B.U.U. CASE NO.: SC13-446 The Florida Board of Bar Examiners (Board) has filed a Report and Recommendation regarding
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Grossman, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-2340.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2013 WI 36 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Joseph M. Engl, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Joseph M.
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Smithern, 125 Ohio St.3d 72, 2010-Ohio-652.] AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. SMITHERN. [Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Smithern, 125 Ohio St.3d 72, 2010-Ohio-652.] Attorneys at law Multiple
Supreme Court of Florida Nos. SC11-1136, SC11-1578, & SC11-2343 THE FLORIDA BAR Complainant, vs. CLINT JOHNSON Respondent. THE FLORIDA BAR Complainant, vs. CLINT JOHNSON Respondent. THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant,
supreme court of floriba No. 83,351 THE FLORIDA BAR, C omp 1 a i nan t, VS. AMY LEE BURKICH ~ BURRELL, Respondent. [September 7, 19951 PER CURIAM. We have for review the complaint of The Florida Bar and
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS Definitions Adopted by the Michigan Supreme Court in Grievance Administrator v Lopatin, 462 Mich 235, 238 n 1 (2000) AInjury@ is harm to
People v. Miranda. 06PDJ010. July 10, 2007. Attorney Regulation. Following a Sanctions Hearing, a Hearing Board suspended Respondent Michael Thomas Miranda (Attorney Registration No. 24702) from the practice
.-. No. 74,443 THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, vs. FREDRIC GERSON LEVIN, Respondent. [October 11, 19901 PER CURIAM. Respondent seeks review of the referee's order recommending that he be publicly reprimanded.
Inquiry Concerning A Florida Lawyer This pamphlet provides general information relating to the purpose and procedures of the Florida lawyer discipline system. It should be read carefully and completely
07/02/04 See News Release 055 for any concurrences and/or dissents. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 04-B-0828 IN RE: VINCENT ROSS CICARDO ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM This disciplinary matter
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, V. BRUCE D. FRANKE, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S ANSWERING BRIEF DONALD T. FRANKE 849 7th Avenue South, Suite 101 Naples, Florida 33940 Fla Bar
No. 76,468 THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, vs. JEROME L. TEPPS, Respondent. [May 28, 19921 PER CURIAM. Jerome L. Tepps, a member of The Florida Bar, seeks review of a referee's report f indiny him guilty
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF MICHIGAN S ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE SYSTEM HISTORY Michigan s system for attorney discipline has existed in its current form since 1978. With the creation of the State Bar of Michigan
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No. 499, Disciplinary Docket Petitioner : No. 3 - Supreme Court : : No. 51 DB 1999 : Disciplinary Board
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT PANEL B IN RE: BELINDA BETH BURRIS ARKANSAS BAR ID No. 2007047 CPC Docket No. 2015-034 FINDINGS AND ORDER Belinda Beth Burris is an attorney from
l Vlfte. WAKE COUNTY ;Oe BEFORE THE am ' e, D IPLINARY HEARING COMMISSION NORTH CAROL L_ OF THE c9 ` ORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR 00 DHC 14 THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR, PLAINTIFF, V. FRED J. WILLIAMS, ATTORNEY
Utica College Annual Notice Regarding Drug and Alcohol Abuse Prevention Policies Utica College is required by federal law to provide the following notice to all students and employees. This notice is being
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA September 2012 Term FILED October 19, 2012 No. 35705 OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner v. JOHN W. ALDERMAN, III, Respondent released at 3:00 p.m.
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2012 WI 37 CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Benjamin C. Butler, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Benjamin
MISSOURI S LAWYER DISCIPLINE SYSTEM Discipline System Clients have a right to expect a high level of professional service from their lawyer. In Missouri, lawyers follow a code of ethics known as the Rules
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 14-3137 United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Lacresia Joy White lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant Appeal
RULES FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINARY ENFORCEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA December 1, 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA RULES
THE NEXT CASE ON THE COURT'S AGENDA IS FLORIDA BAR VERSUS IRISH. >> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. CHIEF JUSTICE QUINCE, ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT, MS. LAZARUS, MY NAME IS RICHARD MARX AND I REPRESENT
NOTICE This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (4th 130903-U NO. 4-13-0903
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee) THE FLORIDA BAR, CASE NO. Complainant, TFB NO. 2010-10,403(20A) v. 2010-10,970(20A) 2010-11,165(20A) MATTHEW KIMBALL MCDOWELL, Respondent. COMPLAINT THE
If You Have Been Charged with a Crime in Florida, Familiarizing Yourself with Your Charges and the Potential Penalties If You are Convicted is the First Step to Making Yourself More Informed, Empowered
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE In the Matter of a Member of the Bar of No. 428, 2012 the Supreme Court of Delaware: Board Case No. 2011-0548-B PATRICK E. VANDERSLICE, Respondent. Submitted:
No. 76,408 THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, vs. HANS C. FEIGE, Re s porident. [February 13, 19921 PER CURIAM. Hans C. Feige petitions this Court to review the referee's findings and recommendations in the
Understanding the Criminal Bars to the Deferred Action Policy for Childhood Arrivals 1. What are the criminal bars for deferred action? In addition to a number of other requirements, to qualify for deferred
05/02/03 See News Release 032 for any concurrences and/or dissents. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 03-B-0910 IN RE: HARRY E. CANTRELL, JR. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM This matter arises
05/21/2010 "See News Release 038 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 09-B-2680 IN RE: KENNER O. MILLER, JR. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM * This disciplinary
THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, vs. ALEC JOSEPH ROSS, Respondent. No. 89,012 [December 24, 1998] PER CURIAM. We have for review the referee's report and recommendations regarding alleged ethical violations
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL : No. 734, Disciplinary Docket No. 3 Petitioner : Supreme Court : : No. 52 DB 2002 Disciplinary Board v.
Policy V. 7.2.1 Responsible Official: Vice President for Human Resources, Diversity, and Multicultural Affairs Effective Date: October 26, 2009 Drug-Free Workplace Policy Statement The University of Vermont
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC08-2163 IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.111. LABARGA, J. [August 27, 2009] This matter is before the Court for consideration sua sponte of amendments
OVERVIEW OF BAR DISCIPLINE DIVERSION PROGRAMS (Prepared May 23, 2007) 1 Introduction The following information provides an overview of the states' attorney discipline diversion programs that address alcohol
BEFORE THE BOARD OF DISCIPLINARY APPEALS APPOINTED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS No. 30611 IN THE MATTER OF DIMITRI A. FILIPPOV PETITION FOR COMPULSORY DISCIPLINE OPINION AND ORDER Heard November 14, 2003
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 23, 2012 at Knoxville STATE OF TENNESSEE v. MISTY LYNN NANNEY Appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County Nos.
No. 74,764 THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, vs. T. MICHAEL PRICE, Respondent. [November 8, 19901 PER CURIAM. A referee recommended that this Court privately reprimand the respondent, T. Michael Price, a member
Ultimate Medical Academy - Student Drug and Alcohol Prevention 8/10/2015 Contents Drug and Alcohol Abuse Prevention Drug-Free Environment Policy...2 Health Risks...2 Alcoholism... 2 Major Drugs... 3 Amphetamines...
SYLLABUS (This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme
SYLLABUS (This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 98-B-2513 IN RE: BARBARA IONE BIVINS ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM * This attorney disciplinary proceeding arises from three counts of formal charges instituted
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Ross, 107 Ohio St.3d 354, 2006-Ohio-5.] COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. ROSS. [Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Ross, 107 Ohio St.3d 354, 2006-Ohio-5.] Attorneys at law Misconduct
KANE COUNTY DRUG REHABILITATION COURT COURT RULES AND PROCEDURES I. MISSION The Illinois General Assembly has recognized that there is a critical need for a criminal justice program that will reduce the
FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 80 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Opinions handed down on the 19th day of October, 2004, are as follows: PER CURIAM: 2004- B-0881 IN RE: CARL W.
ARTICLE 36: KANE COUNTY DRUG REHABILITATION COURT RULES AND PROCEDURES (a) Mission: The Illinois General Assembly has recognized that there is a critical need for a criminal justice program that will reduce
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of: ) ) MICHAEL A. CEBALLOS ) Bar Docket No. 329-00 ) Respondent. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 2013 Term No. 12-0005 FILED January 17, 2013 released at 3:00 p.m. RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA LAWYER DISCIPLINARY
DAVID R. RISTOFF Branch Staff Counsel Attorney #358576 The Florida Bar Suite C-49 Tampa Airport Marriott Hotel Tampa, Florida 33607 (813) 875-9821 1' IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant,
10/14/2011 "See News Release 066 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 11-B-1631 IN RE: MAZEN YOUNES ABDALLAH ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM * This disciplinary
CHARLES EDWARD DAVIS, Applicant-Appellant, vs. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 14-0420 Filed May 20, 2015 STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County,
COLLEGE POLICY STATEMENT ON DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE FOR FACULTY AND STAFF American society is harmed in many ways by alcohol abuse and other drug use. Decreased productivity, serious health problems, breakdown
Janet Napolitano Governor Joey Ridenour Executive Director Arizona State Board of Nursing 4747 North 7th Street, Suite 200 Phoenix AZ 85014-3653 Phone (602) 889-5150 Fax (602) 889-5155 E-Mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
T H E M I N N E S O T A C O U N T Y A T T O R N E Y S A S S O C I A T I O N Minnesota County Attorneys Association Policy Positions on Drug Control and Enforcement Adopted: September 17, 2004 Introduction
02/04/2011 "See News Release 008 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 10-B-2582 IN RE: ROBERT L. BARRIOS ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM * This disciplinary
[Cite as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Vivo, 135 Ohio St.3d 82, 2012-Ohio-5682.] MAHONING COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. VIVO. [Cite as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Vivo, 135 Ohio St.3d 82, 2012-Ohio-5682.] Attorneys
ENROLLED Regular Session, 1997 HOUSE BILL NO. 2412 BY REPRESENTATIVE JACK SMITH AN ACT To enact Chapter 33 of Title 13 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, comprised of R.S. 13:5301 through 5304,
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: September 14, 2015 S15Z0555. IN THE MATTER OF JONATHAN RICHARD HUDDLESTON. PER CURIAM. On January 28, 2013, Jonathan Richard Huddleston submitted an application
California Judges Association OPINION NO. 56 (Issued: August 29, 2006) ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS WHEN A JUDGE OR A MEMBER OF A JUDGE S FAMILY HAS BEEN ARRESTED OR IS BEING PROSECUTED FOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
PLEADING YOUR LICENSE AWAY By Ralph B. Saltsman with Stephen Warren Solomon and Stephen A. Jamieson File this scenario under Just when you think your troubles are over. You accidentally place a bunch of
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D, this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral