REPORT OF REFEREE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee)

THE FLORIDA BAR,

Complainant, v.

Case No. SC07-1199 [TFB Case Nos. 2007-30,014 (09B), 2007-30,741 (09B), 2007-30,742 (09B), 2007-30,833 (09B), 2007-31,117 (09B)]

MARK C. JOHNSON,

Respondent. _____________________________/

REPORT OF REFEREE

I. Summary of Proceedings: Pursuant to the undersigned being duly appointed as referee to conduct disciplinary proceedings herein according to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, an order of default was entered on August 23, 2007, and the final hearing as to discipline only was held on September 14, 2007. Respondent was properly provided with all notices of the proceedings. The pleadings, notices, motions, orders, transcripts and exhibits, all of which are forwarded to The Supreme Court of Florida with this report, constitute the record in this case.

The following attorneys appeared as counsel for the parties:

For The Florida Bar: For The Respondent:

Patricia Ann Toro Savitz No Appearance

II. Findings of Fact as to Each Item of Misconduct of Which the Respondent Is Charged: After considering all the pleadings and evidence before me, pertinent portions of which are commented on below, I find:

Pursuant to the respondent's failure to file the requisite answer to the above-styled complaint in this matter, this referee entered an order of default on August 23, 2007. The allegations in the bar's complaint are deemed admitted. Accordingly, this referee makes the following findings of fact:

As to TFB Case No. 2007-30,014 (09B): 1. Vishnu Anan Singh, a resident of New York, hired respondent in or

around July 2005 and paid him a legal fee to represent him in a civil suit brought against him by his parents concerning a dispute regarding real property. Mr. Singhs' parents were seeking damages for fraud and misrepresentation and cancellation of the deed.

2. Throughout the representation, respondent failed to maintain adequate communication with Mr. Singh regarding case status and upcoming hearings.

3. Respondent failed to file the answer and the affirmative defenses in a timely manner. Furthermore, respondent failed to provide a copy of the answer and affirmative defenses to opposing counsel.

4. Throughout the civil proceedings, respondent missed filing deadlines and failed to respond to discovery requests on more than one occasion. Respondent and Mr. Singh were subject to motions to compel and motions for sanctions.

5. As a result of respondent's lack of diligence, the court entered orders striking respondent's pleadings and directing respondent to respond to the plaintiffs' request for production.

6. Respondent failed to communicate with Mr. Singh regarding the various motions filed by opposing counsel, as well as the hearings set on the motions. Respondent also failed to communicate with Mr. Singh regarding discovery requests.

7. Further, respondent failed to advise Mr. Singh that on December 15, 2005, opposing counsel had scheduled Mr. Singh for deposition and filed the notice with the court. As a result, Mr. Singh did not appear on January 16, 2006, for his duly noticed deposition.

8. On March 30, 2006, opposing counsel filed a motion for summary judgment. The motion was set for hearing on April 12, 2006.

9. Respondent failed to diligently review and investigate the basis for the summary judgment in order to prepare for the hearing. Further, the day before the scheduled hearing, respondent faxed a motion to the court at 8:00 p.m. seeking a continuance claiming lack of proper notice and a scheduling conflict.

10. The hearing went forward as scheduled on April 12, 2006. Respondent did not appear and did not send alternate counsel in his stead. The court granted the motion for summary judgment and set aside the deed in favor of the plaintiffs. The court awarded the plaintiffs $625.00 in costs.

11. Respondent did not advise Mr. Singh of the summary judgment and cost award entered against him.

2

12. On or about May 18, 2006, Mr. Singh terminated respondent's services and hired new counsel. Mr. Singh did not learn of the unanswered discovery requests, motions to compel, or the summary judgment until new counsel so advised him on May 18, 2006, after reviewing the file at the courthouse.

13. The Florida Bar served respondent at his record bar address on July 13, 2006, with notice of Mr. Singh's grievance. Despite the requirements of R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-8.4(g) that respondent submit a written response, he failed to do so.

14. The Florida Bar served respondent at his record bar address by certified mail, return receipt requested, on August 22, 2006, with notice of Mr. Singh's grievance. Once again, despite the requirements of R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-8.4(g) that respondent submit a written response, he failed to do so.

15. The bar's notice was returned by the United States Postal Service as being unclaimed and not forwardable.

16. Respondent did not advise the bar of any change in his record bar address until on or about September 27, 2006.

17. Respondent closed his law office without prior notice to Mr. Singh and moved to Georgia. Respondent abandoned Mr. Singh's case and provided no service to him other than filing an answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaim.

As to TFB Case No. 2007-30,741(09B): 1. Anthony Campbell hired respondent to represent him on two charges

of felony fraud. Mr. Campbell paid respondent $3,000.00 to handle the matter. 2. Thereafter, respondent failed to maintain adequate communication

with Mr. Campbell and his family regarding case status. 3. Respondent failed to appear in court on behalf of Mr. Campbell as

scheduled for 8:45 a. m. on July 19, 2006. At 1:45 p. m. that same day, respondent faxed to the court a document advising he had moved out of state and would not be representing Mr. Campbell further.

4. Respondent closed his law office and moved out of state without advising Mr. Campbell and without taking any steps to protect Mr. Campbell's interests.

5. Respondent failed to properly withdraw from representing Mr. Campbell. Respondent failed to file the required pleadings with the court to withdraw from Mr. Campbell's case.

6. Respondent performed no appreciable legal services for Mr.

3

Campbell. Mr. Campbell requested respondent to refund the unearned legal fee but respondent failed to do so.

7. The Florida Bar served respondent at his record bar address with notice of Mr. Campbell's grievance on November 2, 2006. Despite the requirements of R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-8.4(g) that he submit a written response, respondent failed to do so.

8. The Florida Bar served respondent at his record bar address by certified mail, return receipt requested, on December 7, 2006, with notice of Mr. Campbell's grievance. Respondent's agent signed the return receipt card on December 9, 2006.

9. Despite the requirements of R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-8.4(g) that respondent submit a written response, he failed to do so.

10. Respondent did not notify the bar of a change in his record bar address in a timely manner as required by R. Regulating Fla. Bar 1-3.3.

As to TFB Case No. 2007-30,742(09B): 1. On or about July 22, 2005, Trevor Williams hired respondent to

represent him in an immigration matter. Mr. Williams paid respondent $1,400.00 toward the $2,700.00 fee.

2. Throughout the representation, respondent failed to maintain adequate communication with Mr. Williams.

3. On the limited occasions when Mr. Williams was able to contact respondent for status updates, respondent assured him he was working on the matter and the case was progressing, when in fact this was not accurate.

4. In or around January 2006, respondent advised Mr. Williams that Mr. Williams was required to undergo a physical and respondent needed $300.00 to cover this cost. Mr. Williams paid respondent the cost deposit.

5. Respondent advised Mr. Williams that he would be issued his work permit within approximately three weeks after Mr. Williams completed his physical.

6. Thereafter, Mr. Williams heard nothing further from respondent until May 2006.

7. When Mr. Williams was able to contact respondent in May 2006 for a status update, respondent assured him that he was merely waiting for the paperwork and fingerprints to be processed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

8. Thereafter, Mr. Williams heard nothing further from respondent. 9. Respondent closed his law office and moved to Georgia without

4

advising Mr. Williams and without taking the necessary steps to protect Mr. Williams' interests.

10. Respondent failed to return Mr. Williams' original documents to him. The original documents were needed to in order for Mr. Williams to continue to pursue and obtain a work permit.

11. The Florida Bar served respondent at his record bar address with notice of Mr. Williams' grievance on November 2, 2006. Despite the requirements of R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-8.4(g) that he submit a written response, respondent failed to do so.

12. The Florida Bar served respondent at his record bar address by certified mail, return receipt requested, on December 7, 2006, with notice of Mr. Williams' grievance. Respondent's agent signed the return receipt card on December 9, 2006.

13. Despite the requirements of R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-8.4(g) that respondent submit a written response, he failed to do so.

14. Respondent did not notify the bar of a change in his record bar address in a timely manner as required by R. Regulating Fla. Bar 1-3.3.

As to TFB Case No. 2007-31,833(09B): 1. In or around September 2005, Francesca Filippelli hired respondent

to represent her in collecting her former husband's pension that she was awarded in their dissolution of marriage case.

2. On September 13, 2005, respondent filed a motion to order distribution of pension and forwarded the proposed qualified domestic relations order form he had received from Ms. Filippelli to the court for its signature with instructions to return the signed order to respondent. Respondent did not serve a copy of his motion, the proposed order, or his forwarding letter on the opposing party. Respondent made no changes to the order form he received from Ms. Filippelli.

3. The court signed the order on September 19, 2005, and returned it to respondent as directed. Thereafter, respondent failed to ensure the executed order was recorded.

4. Respondent gave Ms. Filippelli a copy of the unrecorded order, but she was unable to use this order to obtain her former husband's pension because it had not been recorded.

5. Respondent closed his law office and moved to Georgia without notice to Ms. Filippelli and without taking the necessary steps to ensure her matter was concluded.

5

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download