RAMPART LIFE ASSOCIATES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ARTHUR TURKISH, AS TRUSTEE UNDER IRREVOCABLE ADA TURKISH/TRASK 1990 IRREVOCABLE TRUST AND ADA TURKISH TRASK, APPELLEES
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 court held that counsel violated ethical rules by including information in a brief that was part of a denied motion to supplement the record.
Appellee's counsel included a footnote in their brief referencing a deposition taken after the order being appealed. This was done after the court den…
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 Sanctions Against Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Appellant Rampart has taken this non-final appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss grounded on lack of personal jurisdiction. After appellant filed its brief, appel-lee moved to supplement the record with a deposition of a person named Gans which was taken two and one-half months after the entry of the order being appealed. We of course denied the motion to supplement.
Appellees then filed their brief which contained a footnote on page 4 which stated the following:
Discovery taken subsequent to Judge Kroll’s ruling on Rampart’s motion to dismiss already has shown that Gans was appointed by Rampart as its agent solely to sell the policy to Appellees in Florida. A motion to supplement the record in this appeal with the deposition transcript of Gans was denied by this Honorable Court.
Appellant has filed a motion to strike and for sanctions. Appellees have responded only that they included the footnote in the facts section of their brief in order “to apprise this court of all proceedings surrounding the case.”
It would have been bad enough if counsel for appellee, Judith A. Ripps, had included the information in appellees’ brief without moving to supplement the record. To make matters worse, she did it after we denied her motion to supplement the record. In doing so she has violated two ethical rules: (1) Rule 4-3.5(a) of the Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct which provides that a lawyer “shall not seek to influence a judge ... except as permitted by law or the rules of court;” and (2) Rule 4-3.4(c) which provides that counsel shall not “knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal....”
We therefore strike the footnote and sanction Judith A. Ripps, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410, by assessing $500.00 in attorney’s fees to be paid to opposing counsel within fifteen days of this order. DELL and FARMER, JJ.,. concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bush v. State, 809 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…of differing interpretations, and its rulings in this regard will not be disturbed unless discretion has been abused. See Maggard v. State, 399 So. 2d 973, 975 (Fla.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1059, 102 S.Ct. 610, 70 L.Ed.2d 598 (1981); D.F. v. State, 730 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). A lay witness may describe a person’s physical appearance using opinions [*120] that do not require special skill, so long as the opinions are based upon observations of the witness. Fino v. Nodine, 646 So. 2d 746, 749 (Fla. 4th…