THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT
v.
PETIA DIMITROVA KNOWLES, RESPONDENT
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the approval of the referee’s recommendation that the respondent be found guilty, but I dissent from the sanction imposed by the Court.
In addition to other misconduct, the respondent was guilty of threatening to present criminal charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter, conduct which is expressly prohibited by Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 4-3.4(g). Such misconduct by its very nature causes harm to the legal system. The respondent was chargeable with knowledge of the rule prohibiting this misconduct. Florida Standard for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 7.2 provides that “[s]uspension is appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional and causes injury or potential injury to ... the legal system.” Given all of the relevant circumstances, the misconduct here warrants a ninety-day suspension.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Petia Dimitrova Knowles, 99 So. 3d 918 (Fla. 2012)…potential [*924] injury to a client, the public, or the legal system”). Respondent’s recent reprimand for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in Case Number SC09-403 further weighs in favor of a suspension. See Fla. Bar v. Knowles, 64 So. 3d 1195 (Fla.2011); Florida Standard for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 8.2 (“[sjuspension is appropriate when a lawyer has been publicly reprimanded for the same or similar conduct and engages in further similar acts of misconduct that cause injury or potential…1 / 2