The Florida Bar v. Wolf

Summary

The Supreme Court of Florida rejected a referee's recommendation to reinstate Michael Howard Wolf to the practice of law. The court held that Wolf practiced law while suspended by providing legal advice and related services concerning gaming businesses, and that his handling of funds and continued financial irresponsibility independently undermined reinstatement. The court denied reinstatement, permitted him to reapply after at least one year, and assessed costs against him.

Holdings

1. Wolf's consulting activities constituted the practice of law because he used enhanced legal skill and knowledge to advise clients about legally proceeding with business transactions, changes in the law, leases, ordinances, and gaming-law interpretation.
2. Wolf was not eligible for reinstatement because practicing law while suspended violated the requirement of strict compliance with the suspension order and failed to establish rehabilitation.
3. The checks representing fees already earned by another attorney were not trust funds, but the checks given to Wolf to retain an attorney for a consulting client were in the nature of trust funds because the money did not belong to Wolf.
4. Wolf's continuing financial irresponsibility was a disqualifying factor weighing against reinstatement, particularly because financial weakness had caused or contributed to the misconduct underlying his suspension.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Wolf's consulting activities during his suspension constituted the practice of law.
2. Whether Wolf's conduct during suspension demonstrated strict compliance with the suspension order and the rehabilitation requirements for reinstatement.
3. Whether Wolf's acceptance and handling of checks intended to retain another attorney constituted handling trust funds and demonstrated disqualifying financial irresponsibility.
4. Whether the referee's recommendation that Wolf be reinstated should be approved.

Disposition

disapproved