Florida Bar v. Catalano
This text of 651 So. 2d 91 (Florida Bar v. Catalano) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
651 So. 2d 91, 1995 Fla. LEXIS 288, 1995 WL 70551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-bar-v-catalano-fla-1995.