THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
JAMES C. MCKENZIE, 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 reviewed a referee's recommendation to suspend attorney James McKenzie from practice for 91 days based on multiple violations of professional conduct rules, including improper ex parte communication with a judge, threats against opposing counsel, and filing a harassing lawsuit. The court approved the suspension and disciplinary sanctions.
The court approved the referee's findings of fact as supported by competent, substantial evidence and upheld the recommended 91-day suspension, requirement to pass the ethics portion of the state bar examination, and payment of costs. The court found the discipline appropriate given McKenzie's overall conduct and prior disciplinary history.
[1] A referee's findings of fact in a disciplinary proceeding are presumed correct and will be upheld unless clearly erroneous.
[2] A lawyer's conduct in improperly communicating with a judge, threatening opposing counsel, and filing suit to harass defendants and a judge constitutes violations of disc…
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“A referee's findings of fact are presumed correct and will be upheld unless clearly erroneous.”
Establishes the standard of review for referee findings in bar discipline cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcKenzie, a Florida Bar member, was charged with improperly communicating with the judge presiding over a divorce case in which he represented the hus…
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 Violation Of Disciplinary Rules cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
James McKenzie, a member of The Florida Bar, petitions for review of a referee’s report recommending that McKenzie be suspended from the practice of law. The bar urges acceptance of the referee’s report and recommendations. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. After reviewing this case, we approve the referee’s actions.
The bar charged McKenzie with improperly communicating with the judge presiding over a divorce case in which McKenzie represented the husband and with threatening opposing counsel in another case and with filing suit to harass the defendants and the presiding judge in that second case. After trial on the complaint, the referee found that McKenzie had violated the following disciplinary rules of the former code of professional responsibility: 1-102(A)(1) (a lawyer shall not violate a disciplinary rule), 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct reflecting adversely on fitness to practice law), 7-102(A)(1) (a lawyer shall not file suit, etc., merely to harass or maliciously injure another), 7-102(A)(2) (a lawyer shall not knowingly advance an unwarranted claim or defense), 7-102(A)(7) (a lawyer shall not counsel or assist a client in illegal or fraudulent conduct), 7-106(C)(l) (a lawyer shall not state or allude to matters which are irrelevant or are not supported by admissible evidence). The referee recommends that McKenzie be suspended for ninety-one days, that he be required to take and pass the ethics portion of the state bar examination, and that he pay the costs of the proceedings.
“A referee’s findings of fact are presumed correct and will be upheld unless clearly erroneous.” The Florida Bar v. Della-Donna, no. 69,324, slip op. at 6 (Fla. June 22, 1989); The Florida Bar v. Stal- naker, 485 So. 2d 815 (Fla.1986). McKenzie disputes the referee’s findings, but our review of the record shows them to be supported by competent, substantial evidence. Della-Donna; The Florida Bar v. Hooper, 509 So. 2d 289 (Fla.1987). Therefore, we approve the referee’s findings of fact.
The recommended discipline is appropriate. McKenzie has two prior disciplinary actions resulting in public reprimands. The Florida Bar v. McKenzie, 442 So. 2d 934 (Fla.1983); The Florida Bar v. McKenzie, 432 So. 2d 566 (Fla.1983). His overall conduct causes disrespect of the legal profession and makes suspect his ability to practice law competently and ethically. We therefore approve the recommended discipline.
James C. McKenzie is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of ninety-one days with the additional conditions recommended by the referee. To give McKenzie time to protect his clients’ interests and close out his practice, this suspension will be effective thirty days from the date this opinion is filed. He shall accept no new business after that filing date. Judgment for costs in the amount of $2,069.50 is hereby entered against McKenzie, 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 Florida BAR v. Poplack, 599 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 1992)…ts that cases where this Court has granted a ninety-one-day suspension have involved numerous instances of dishonesty. In contrast, Poplack argues that his case involves an isolated instance of misjudgment. Poplack cites The Florida Bar v. McKenzie, 557 So. 2d 31 (Fla.1990) (where this Court approved a ninety-one-day suspension, after two prior disciplinary actions had been initiated against an attorney and where the attorney had been found guilty of seven provisions of the former Code of Professional Respon…
-
THE Florida BAR v. McKENZIE, 581 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 1991)…noted that McKenzie had a prior disciplinary record, specifically, The Florida Bar v. McKenzie, 432 So. 2d 566 (Fla.1983) (public reprimand); The Florida Bar v. McKenzie, 442 So. 2d 934 (Fla.1983) (public reprimand); and The Florida Bar v. McKenzie, 557 So. 2d 31 (Fla.1990) (suspension from the practice of law for a period of ninety-one days). The referee also noted, as aggravating factors: Prior disciplinary offenses; Dishonest or selfish motives; Submission of false testimony or evidence before the Refere…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Kirkpatrick, 567 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1990)…es the referee’s conclusion that he violated the rules of professional conduct. Our review of the record shows the referee’s findings of fact to be supported by competent, substantial evidence and we therefore approve them. The Fla. Bar v. McKenzie, 557 So. 2d 31 (Fla.1990). We also conclude that these findings of fact support the referee’s recommendation that respondent be found guilty of the alleged rule violations. As the referee noted in his report: [The respondent’s] indifference and lack of attentiven…
Authorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. McKENZIE, 442 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 1983)
- THE Florida BAR v. Stalnaker, 485 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 1986)
- THE Florida BAR v. J.B. Hooper, 509 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1987)
- THE Florida BAR v. McKENZIE, 432 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1983)