THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
ANDREW T. COUTANT, 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 upheld a disciplinary recommendation finding attorney Andrew T. Coutant guilty of violating rules requiring diligence, client communication, and litigation expedition. The Court approved a 30-day suspension, citing Coutant's extensive prior disciplinary history as justification for enhanced punishment beyond what isolated misconduct would warrant.
The Court affirmed the referee's findings of misconduct and approved the 30-day suspension. The Court held that the referee properly resolved conflicts in testimony and that the record supported the violations of Rules 4-1.3, 4-1.4(a), and 4-3.2. A suspension was warranted due to Coutant's extensive disciplinary history, as cumulative misconduct justifies harsher discipline than isolated violations.
[1] A referee's findings of fact in attorney disciplinary proceedings are presumed correct and will be upheld unless clearly erroneous or unsupported by the record.
[2] An attorney's sworn statement to a grievance committee that the attorney is an active member in good standing, when the attorney is aware of a suspension for delinquency,…
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“it is the referee's duty to resolve conflicts in testimony and that a referee's findings should be upheld if supported by competent substantial evidence”
Establishes the standard of review for disciplinary findings—the referee's factual determinations are upheld if competent substantial evidence supports them
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCoutant, a Florida Bar member, was accused of failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, failing to keep the cl…
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 Rules Regulating The Florida Bar 4-1.3 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Andrew T. Coutant, a member of The Florida Bar, petitions the Court to review the referee’s report recommending that he be found guilty of violating Rules Regulating The Florida Bar 4-1.3,1 4-1.4(a),2 and 4-3.23 and that he be suspended for thirty days.4 Coutant argues that the referee should have granted his petition for rehearing because the evidence did not support the referee’s finding due to the complaining witness’ perjured testimony. The bar, on the other hand, points out that it is the referee’s duty to resolve conflicts in testimony and that a referee’s findings should be upheld if supported by competent substantial evidence. The Florida Bar v. Bajoczky, 558 So. 2d 1022 (Fla.1990). Our examination of this record shows that it supports the referee’s findings regarding misconduct and we approve them.
We also approve the recommended discipline of a thirty-day suspension. The referee recognized that the instant misconduct would ordinarily warrant lesser discipline, but found a suspension needed here due to Coutant’s “extensive disciplinary history.”5 As previously stated: “The Court deals more harshly with cumulative misconduct than it does with isolated misconduct.” The Florida Bar v. Bern, 425 So. 2d 526, 528 (Fla.1982). We agree with the referee that a suspension is warranted to impress upon Coutant the need for improving his methods of practice.
Therefore, Andrew T. Coutant is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of thirty days, to begin thirty days from the date this opinion is filed, thereby giving him time to protect the interests of his clients. Coutant shall comply with the requirements of rule 3-5.1(h) and shall accept no new business after the date this opinion is filed until he is automatically reinstated at the end of the thirty-day suspension. Judgment for costs in the amount of $1,086.18 is hereby entered against Cou-tant, for which sum let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, ehrlich, barkett, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. . Failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.
. Failing to keep client informed about the status of a matter and failing to comply promptly with reasonable requests for information.
. Failing to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of his client.
. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. . Coutant has previously received two unpublished private reprimands, one with a two-year probation, and a public reprimand coupled with two years’ probation. The Florida Bar v. Coutant, 541 So. 2d 1173 (Fla.1989).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Williams, 604 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 1992)…lack of diligence in both the Cochran and Ingraham case had the potential of causing great harm. In the past, this Court has suspended attorneys who have been found guilty of a lack of diligence in representing a client. See The Fla. Bar v. Coutant, 569 So. 2d 442 (Fla.1990) (where this Court suspended an attorney for thirty days because the attorney failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, and failed to keep the client informed about the status of the case or comply pr…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Dubbeld, 594 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 1992)…arch 1990 and demonstrate a continuing pattern of misconduct upon which Dubbeld’s prior admonishments appear to have had no effect. Cumulative misconduct will be dealt with more harshly than isolated incidents of misconduct. The Fla. Bar v. Coutant, 569 So. 2d 442 (Fla.1990). Dubbeld’s continued misconduct warrants a public reprimand. We also disagree with the referee that prior publicity should mitigate the discipline imposed in this case. As we stated when amending the rules on confidentiality, “public res…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Rosen, 608 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1992)…inappropriate. She contends that a public reprimand is a more appropriate sanction under the facts of this case. As noted by the referee, this Court deals more severely with cumulative misconduct than isolated misconduct. The Florida Bar v. Coutant, 569 So. 2d 442 (Fla.1990); The Florida Bar v. Bern, 425 So. 2d 526 (Fla.1982); The Florida Bar v. Vernell, 374 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1979). Here, in addition to the instant conduct, the Respondent was previously suspended by this Court for grand theft and breaking and…
Authorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Bern, 425 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1982)
- THE Florida BAR v. Bajoczky, 558 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 1990)