Florida Bar v. Catalano

651 So. 2d 91, 1995 Fla. LEXIS 288, 1995 WL 70551
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided February 23, 1995·No. No. 83515·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for review the referee’s report and recommendation that The Florida Bar’s complaint against Michael A. Catalano be dismissed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 15 of the Florida Constitution.

The Bar filed a complaint for minor misconduct against Catalano, alleging that he violated Rule Regulating The Florida Bar 4-8.2(a) (making a false statement concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge). Catalano filed an answer denying the allegations and a motion to dismiss the complaint. Catalano argued that the grievance committee that heard the matter did not have a proper quorum pursuant to Rule Regulating The Florida Bar 3-7.4(g)1 because the members that actually voted did not include two lawyers.

After reading Catalano’s motion to dismiss and the Bar’s response and hearing argument from each party, the referee recommended that the complaint be dismissed and that no costs be taxed against either side. The referee made no findings of fact regarding Catalano’s alleged minor misconduct. The Bar has petitioned for review of the referee’s recommendation of dismissal.

The referee’s report, which is supported by the record, reveals the following facts regarding the grievance committee that heard the complaint against Catalano: The five committee members in attendance included two lawyers and three non-lawyers. One of the lawyers was the investigating member for the committee and, as specified in rule 3-7.4(g), did not participate in the probable cause vote. The four voting members (three non-lawyers and one lawyer) found that the evidence supported a finding of minor misconduct and recommended that the Board of Governors admonish Catalano.

The referee determined that, as used in rule 3-7.4(g), the word “consider” means “to judge.” Thus, the referee concluded that the misconduct charge against Catalano was only considered by one lawyer, in violation of the procedures outlined by rule 3-7.4(g).

We agree with the referee’s interpretation of the rule and approve his recommendation that the complaint against Catalano be dismissed.

It is so ordered.

GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. WELLS, J., recused.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Florida Bar v. Catalano, 651 So. 2d 91, 1995 Fla. LEXIS 288, 1995 WL 70551 (Fla. 1995).

651 So. 2d 91 (Florida Bar v. Catalano) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Amendments to Fla. Bar Rules
677 So. 2d 272 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1996)