IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
'%
(Before a Referee)
THE FLORIDA BAR,
o
Supreme Court Case
No. SC13-2054
Complainant,
The Florida Bar File
v.
No. 2010-11,168 (6A), 2012-11,103
CHRISTOPHER SCOTT KUHN,
Respondent.
REPORT OF REFEREE ACCEPTING CONSENT JUDGMENT
I.
SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS
Pursuant to the undersigned being duly appointed as referee to conduct
disciplinary proceedings herein according to Rule 3-7.6 of the Rules Regulating
the Florida Bar, the following proceedings occurred:
On October 30, 2013, The Florida Bar filed its Complaint against
Respondent in these proceedings. All of the pleadings, responses thereto, exhibits
received in evidence, and this Report constitute the record in this case and are
forwarded to the Supreme Court of Florida.
II.
FINDINGS OF FACT
A.
Jurisdictional Statement. Respondent is, and at all times
mentioned during this investigation was, a member of The Florida Bar, subject
to the jurisdiction and disciplinary rules of the Supreme Court of Florida.
°
B.
Narrative Summary of Case.
TFB No. 2010-11,168 (6A)
Respondent represented the complainant's homeowner's association in
litigation over ownership of some bingo money that was made before the
association split into two entities. The complainant was concerned that Respondent
had over charged the association. Although the bill was high, the litigation had
been extensive and even continued after Respondent was fired by complainant.
However, Respondent did not fully explain matters so that the association could
fully comprehend the nuances of extended litigation. The litigation was resolved
with the association's new attorney.
TFB No. 2012-11,103 (6A)
In 2005, Respondent was retained by a homeowner's association to file suit
against the owner of the mobile home park and his company, regarding their rent
increases and some utility charges. In April 2005, Respondent filed the lawsuit on
behalf of the homeowner's association. Pursuant to Florida Statutes, a person
initiating this type of lawsuit is required to have the consent of a majority of
affected homeowners in order to have standing to bring such a lawsuit. After
Respondent initiated the lawsuit, the Second District Court of Appeals of Florida
established the new legal requirement of written consent of the majority of the
affected homeowners. Although the client was informed about the new case law,
Respondent did not fully explain matters so that the client could fully comprehend
the nuances of continuing the litigation.
III.
RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO GUILT
I recommend that Respondent be found guilty of violating the following
Rule Regulating the Florida Bar: 4-1.4(b) (Communication).
IV.
STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS
I considered the following Standards prior to recommending discipline:
4.4 LACK OF DILIGENCE
Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, and upon application of the
factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are generally appropriate in
cases involving a failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client:
4.44 Admonishment is appropriate when a lawyer is negligent and does not act
with reasonable diligence in representing a client, and causes little or no actual or
potential injury to a client.
9.2 Aggravating Factors
None.
9.3 Mitigating Factors
9.32 (a) absence of a prior disciplinary record;
9.32 (b) absence of a dishonest or selfish motive; and
9.32 (1) remorse.
V.
CASE LAW
I considered the following case law prior to recommending discipline:
Florida Bar v. Shoureas, 892 So.2d 1002, 1006 (Fla. 2004): The Court held in part
that ordinarily, an admonishment is the appropriate sanction when a lawyer is
negligent and fails to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client and
causes little or no potential injury to a client. On the other hand, if the lawyer
causes injury or potential injury by his negligence, a public reprimand is the
appropriate sanction. Here, the facts do not reflect that the complainants were
injured by Respondent's lack of diligent communication. Therefore, an
admonishment is the more appropriate sanction.
Florida Bar v. George John Francis Werner, SC08-399 (unpublished) (Fla. 2008):
The Court approved an admonishment in part due to Respondent's failure to
diligently communicate with his clients in a personal injury case. Additionally,
Respondent was disciplined for attempting to enforce a no visitation child support
agreement in a post-dissolution cause of action despite knowing that the agreement
was invalid.
VI.
RECOMMENDATION AS TO DISCIPLINARY MEASURES TO BE
APPLIED
I recommend that Respondent be found guilty of misconduct justifying
disciplinary measures, and that he be disciplined by:
A.
An admonishment to be administered by issuance of the Supreme
Court of Florida Order approving the Report of Referee accepting this Consent
Judgment.
B.
Attendance at The Florida Bar's Ethics School within 6 months of the
date consent judgment is approved by the Supreme Court of Florida. The fee for
this workshop is $750 and must be paid prior to attendance.
C.
Cost of the disciplinary proceedings.
VII.
PERSONAL HISTORY AND PAST DISCIPLINARY RECORD
Prior to recommending discipline pursuant to Rule 3-7.6(m)(1)(D) of the
Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, I considered the following personal history of
Respondent, to wit:
Age: 45
Date admitted to the Bar: April 29, 1998
Prior Discipline: None.
VIII. STATEMENT OF COSTS AND MANNER IN WHICH COSTS SHOULD
BE TAXED
I find the following costs were reasonably incurred by The Florida Bar:
Administrative cost pursuant to Rule 3-7.6(q)(1)(I)
Ethics School
Investigative Costs:
Copy Costs
Bar Counsel Costs
Court Reporter Fees:
TOTAL:
$1,250.00
$750.00
4.10
39.33
8.73
85.00
$2,137.16
It is recommended that such costs be charged to Respondent and that interest
at the statutory rate shall accrue and that should such cost judgment not be satisfied
within thirty days of said judgment becoming final, Respondent shall be deemed
delinquent and ineligible to practice law, pursuant to Rule 1-3.6 of the Rules
Regulating the Florida Bar, unless otherwise deferred by the Board of Governors
of The Florida Bar.
Dated this
day of September, 2014.
Debra Krochta Behnke, Referee
Hillsborough County Courthouse Annex
401 North Jefferson Street, Room 415
Tampa, FL 33602
Original To:
The Honorable John A. Tomasino, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Florida,
Supreme Court Building, 500 South Duval Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1927
Conformed Copies to:
Christopher Scott Kuhn, 1844 Solon Ave., Dunedin, FL 34698-4138,
[email protected]
Leonard Evans Clark, Tampa Branch Office, 4200 George J. Bean Parkway, Suite
2580,Tampa, Florida 33607-1496, lclark@,flabar.org, [email protected],
[email protected]
Adria Quintela, Staff Counsel, The Florida Bar, at [email protected]