NOCARI INVESTMENT, LLC, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ET AL., 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 Third District Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Nocari Investment, LLC due to appellants' counsel's failure to timely file briefs and comply with court orders. The court referred counsel to the local professionalism panel after finding his explanation of oversight inadequate, particularly given a pattern of similar dismissals in cases he handled.
The court found counsel's explanation of oversight inadequate and determined that referral to the local professionalism panel was the appropriate course of action rather than formal sanctions, given the nature of the conduct and the existence of the professionalism panel mechanism.
[1] An attorney's failure to respond to court orders, seek enlargements of time, or file a motion to withdraw from representation, resulting in the dismissal of a client's ap…
[2] An attorney's explanation for failing to comply with court orders and advise opposing counsel of a client's decision to abandon an appeal, based on simple oversight, may…
Previewing 2 of 4 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 incumbent on the attorney of record to respond appropriately to Court orders, seek enlargements of time, or file a motion to withdraw from representation. The rule does not contemplate the attorney simply doing nothing, so that the client's appeal is dismissed.”
Establishes the professional obligation of attorneys to comply with court orders under Rule 4-1.3 and the impropriety of inaction causing dismissal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants failed to timely file their initial brief, failed to obey orders to file the order appealed, and failed to obey orders to file their brief.…
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 Attorney'S Duty Of Diligence cases and more on FLexlaw
ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
This matter comes before the Court on the Court’s order to show cause. Appellants failed to timely file their initial brief, failed to obey an order to file the order appealed, and failed to obey an order to file their brief. As a result, this case was dismissed and Counsel for Appellants was ordered to show cause why appellants and their counsel should not be sanctioned for failing to file an initial brief or otherwise to comply with this Court’s orders.
In response to the order to show cause, Appellants’ counsel explained his clients decided to abandon the appeal. He acknowledged he should have so advised this court and his opposing counsel, but indicates he failed to do so based upon simple oversight. We find this explanation inadequate in light of the court orders which were not obeyed and the motion filed by opposing counsel to which no response was filed.
Other cases filed by Appellants’ counsel have been dismissed by this court for either the failure to file an initial brief or failure to pay filing fees. Netherlands 7985, LLC, v. U.S. Bank, N.A., No. 3D16-42, 2016 WL 869750 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb. 4, 2016); Central Mills, Inc., v. Lima Sky, LLC, No. 3D15-2548, 2015 WL 9947125 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec. 22, 2015); Cohen v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 147 So.3d 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014); Boston Inv’rs Grp., Inc., v. Bank of America, N.A., 76 So.3d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).
Under Rule 4-1.3 of Professional Conduct, “it is incumbent on the attorney of record to respond appropriately to Court orders, seek enlargements of time, or file a motion to withdraw from representation. The rule does not contemplate the attorney simply doing nothing, so that the client’s appeal is dismissed.” Bedeles *763 v. Brit, 176 So.3d 387, 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015).
In 2013, the Florida Supreme Court, acting on the recommendation of the Florida Commission on Professionalism, ordered each of Florida’s judicial circuits to set up a local professionalism panel—under an administrative order from each circuit’s chief judge—to handle professionalism complaints and address attorney conduct—such as the conduct described herein—which may not rise to the level of an allegation that could result in disciplinary action for unprofessional conduct. We conclude that referral of Appellants’ counsel, Lawrence J. Shapiro, Esquire (FBN: 796085), of Lawrence J. Shapiro & Associates, P.A., to The Eleventh Circuit’s Local Professionalism Panel is the proper course of action.
Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Order to the Local Professionalism Panel for Florida’s Eleventh Circuit—Attn: Professionalism Panel, Lawson E. Thomas Courthouse Center, 30th Floor, 175 NW 1st Avenue, Miami, Florida 33128.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ingrid A. Beckles v. Alcira Marcella Brit, 176 So. 3d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)