The Florida Bar v. Cohen

919 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 2005) · Supreme Court of Florida · November 23, 2005 · No. SC04-1019

Summary

The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed the disciplinary sanction imposed on attorney Marc B. Cohen following his nolo contendere pleas to felony marijuana possession and multiple misdemeanor offenses, including DUI and reckless driving. The court approved the referee's factual findings and guilt recommendations but increased the sanction to a ninety-day suspension followed by three years of probation, with specified substance-abuse and rehabilitation conditions.

Court
Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam; Pariente, C.J.; Wells, J.; Anstead, J.; Lewis, J.; Quince, J.; Cantero, J.; Bell, J.
Jurisdiction
Florida
Decision date
November 23, 2005
Docket number
SC04-1019
Procedural posture
The Florida Bar sought review of a referee's recommended discipline in an attorney disciplinary proceeding arising under the felony suspension rule.
Standard of review
The Supreme Court of Florida reviews a referee's recommended discipline more expansively than the referee's findings of fact because the Court has ultimate responsibility for ordering the appropriate sanction. The Court generally will not second-guess the recommended discipline if it has a reasonable basis in existing case law and the Florida Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions.
Precedential value
Published Florida Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
The Florida Bar v. Marc B. Cohen
Disposition
other

Topics

appellate procedureremediescriminal procedure

Practice areas

attorney disciplinelegal ethicsprofessional responsibility

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the referee's recommended thirty-day suspension, credited by time served, followed by three years of probation was an appropriate discipline for Cohen's felony drug-possession charge and five related misdemeanor offenses.
  2. Whether the Supreme Court of Florida should approve the referee's findings of fact and recommendations as to guilt while rejecting the recommended discipline.

Holdings

  1. The Supreme Court of Florida has ultimate responsibility to order the appropriate attorney-discipline sanction and therefore reviews a referee's recommended discipline more expansively than the referee's findings of fact.
  2. A thirty-day suspension was inappropriate for Cohen's felony drug-possession charge and five related misdemeanor offenses. Because Cohen proved rehabilitation, the appropriate sanction was a ninety-day suspension followed by three years of probation subject to the referee's specified conditions.

Key quotations

In reviewing a referee's recommended discipline, this Court's scope of review is more expansive than that afforded to the referee's findings of fact because it is ultimately the Court's responsibility to order the appropriate sanction. (919 So. 2d at 386)
We hold a thirty-day suspension for a felony drug possession charge and five other charges is inappropriate, considering the facts of the instant case. (919 So. 2d at 388)

Factual background

Cohen pleaded nolo contendere to felony marijuana possession and five misdemeanors, including driving under the influence, possession of drug paraphernalia, fleeing and eluding, resisting arrest without violence, and reckless driving. Before his arrest, he drove seventy to ninety miles per hour in the wrong direction on Interstate 95 while intoxicated, causing an accident that injured or endangered innocent motorists. Police found seventy-one grams of marijuana and extensive drug paraphernalia in his vehicle. Cohen later sought treatment, established rehabilitation, and had no prior disciplinary record.

Procedural history

Cohen pleaded nolo contendere to a felony marijuana-possession charge and five misdemeanor charges arising from his arrest. The referee found the plea conclusive proof of guilt and recommended a thirty-day suspension, credited by time served, followed by three years of probation. The Florida Bar petitioned for review of the recommended discipline, arguing that a ninety-day suspension and three years of probation were appropriate.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…