THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
HERMAN COHEN, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a referee's recommendation to suspend attorney Herman Cohen from practice for ninety-one days based on his involvement in a fraudulent mortgage scheme designed to shield corporate assets from liability. The suspension followed Cohen's prior disciplinary history and a finding that he violated multiple rules of professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, and misconduct.
The Court affirmed the referee's guilt determination and recommended discipline. Cohen is suspended from the practice of law for ninety-one days, with reinstatement contingent upon proof of rehabilitation. The suspension commences November 21, 1988, and Cohen must accept no new business from the date of the opinion.
[1] A lawyer violates rules of professional conduct by advising a client to execute a mortgage and note from a corporation to the client and the lawyer, when the transaction…
[2] Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and conduct adversely reflecting on f…
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Cohen violated D.R. 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); D.R. 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice); D.R. 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law); D.R. 7-102(A)(3) (concealing or knowingly failing to disclose that required by law to be revealed); D.R. 7-102(A)(4) (knowingly using perjured or false evidence); D.R. 7-102(A)(6) (participating in the creation or presentation of false evidence); and D.R. 7-102(A)(7) (counseling or assisting his client in illegal or fraudulent conduct).”
Establishes the specific professional conduct violations found by the referee
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCohen advised Spike Von Zamft, sole shareholder of N.I. Meats, Inc., to execute a mortgage and note from the corporation to both Von Zamft and Cohen. …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Conduct Adversely Reflecting On Fitness To Practice Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This proceeding is before the Court on the petition of Herman Cohen challenging the referee’s recommendation that Cohen be suspended from the practice of law for ninety-one days. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla.Const. We agree with the referee’s guilt determination and recommended discipline.
The referee found that Cohen advised Spike Von Zamft, the sole shareholder of N.I. Meats, Inc., to execute a mortgage and a note from the corporation to both Yon Zamft and himself. Later, the two parties foreclosed on the mortgage, and Cohen filed an Affidavit of Indebtedness claiming that the corporation owed Von Zamft and himself $60,000 on the note plus $3,000 interest. The referee found that the entire transaction was established to prevent paying high liability insurance premiums and damages to possible claimants against the corporation. Further, the referee noted that no indebtedness ever existed.
After making the factual findings, the referee determined that Cohen violated D.R. 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); D.R. 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice); D.R. 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law); D.R. 7-102(A)(3) (concealing or knowingly failing to disclose that required by law to be revealed); D.R. 7-102(A)(4) (knowingly using perjured or false evidence); D.R. 7-102(A)(6) (participating in the creation or presentation of false evidence); and D.R. 7-102(A)(7) (counseling or assisting his client in illegal or fraudulent conduct).
The referee recommended that Cohen be suspended from the practice of law for ninety-one days with reinstatement upon proof of rehabilitation. Cohen challenges the referee’s report.
Cohen has a history of disciplinary problems. In 1976, this Court publicly reprimanded him for misconduct. The Florida Bar re Cohen, 331 So. 2d 306 (Fla.1976). Further, in Cohen v. New Sunrise Investment Corp., No. 76-16246 (Fla. 11th Cir.Ct. Apr. 9, 1986), the Eleventh Judicial Circuit held that Cohen had transferred real properties fraudulently and ordered the conveyances to be set aside.
We find that the referee’s report is fully supported by the evidence and approve the recommended discipline. Accordingly, we suspend Herman Cohen for ninety-one days and thereafter until he proves rehabilitation. To enable him to close out his practice in an orderly manner and protect his clients’ interests, his suspension shall commence November 21, 1988; however, he shall accept no new business from the date of this opinion.
The referee also recommended that Cohen pay the costs associated with the proceedings. We agree. Judgment is entered against Herman Cohen for costs in the amount of $1,650.02, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, shaw, barkett, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Fla. BAR. In re Herman Cohen, 560 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 1990)…tated to membership in The Florida Bar. We have jurisdiction under article V, section 15, of the Florida Constitution. Cohen received a ninety-one-day suspension from the practice of law for engaging in fraudulent conduct. The Florida Bar v. Cohen, 534 So. 2d 392 (Fla.1988). The suspension was to commence on November 21, 1988, and reinstatement was conditioned upon proof of rehabilitation. Cohen filed his petition for reinstatement on February 24, 1989, and a hearing on the matter was held July 19, 1989. At…
-
Spike von Zamft v. Cohen, 578 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…ulations § 15 (1977). In reaching both of these determinations, we have applied the rule that the fact that a party has engaged in inequitable conduct as a general matter or with respect to the public or a third person, see The Florida Bar v. Cohen, 534 So. 2d 392 (Fla.1988), reinstatement denied, 560 So. 2d 785 (Fla.1990), does not affect his legal rights as to another person to whom the improper activity was not directed. Miller v. Berry, 78 Fla. 98, 82 So. 764 (1919). Affirmed in part, reversed in part.…
Authorities Cited
- THE Fla. BAR. In re Herman Cohen, 331 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1976)