CONTEMPT FOR THE

INTEGRATED FLORIDA BAR

AND SUPREME COURT
by David Arthur Walters

The Florida Bar and the Florida

Supreme Court of which the
Bar is part and parcel deserve
an utterance of contempt for
their failure to regulate
powerful, politically connected
law firms until damage to the public is irreparably done.

For example, Greenberg Traurig, some of whose lawyers were

implicated in the Hamilton Bank and Allen Stanford scandals, the
very firm whose name became infamous in the Abramoff political
scandal. But Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, the erstwhile South
Florida legal powerhouse led by the now notorious swindler Scott
Rothstein, is currently the most glaring example. Rothstein and
his colleagues ran a Ponzi-scheme that bilked investors of over $1
billion under the mantle of the firm, using the firm's letterhead
and mingling some of the ill-gotten proceeds with the firm's
accounts while doling out millions of dollars for the benefit of his
fine friend Governor Charlie Crist, former Senator Mel Martinez,
Senator John McCain, presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, and
the like.

The Rothstein firm hired former judges and a mayor, and

Rothstein bought police protection from top law enforcement
officials. Ironically, he sat on a Bar committee responsible for
disciplining unethical conduct of lawyers. Governor Crist
appointed him to a judiciary nominating committee just after
Rothstein contributed funds to his campaign and the Republican
Party. The Rothstein firm doled out huge bonuses to attorneys on
the condition they contribute to designated candidates, a fact
that could subject them to charges of fraud, money laundering
and tax evasion. Furthermore, Rothstein and his law associates
created at least 30 shell corporations to launder money, shuffle
acquired assets and conceal the identities of the corporate
directors and officers involved in the illicit scheme. Berger
Singerman, the law firm handling Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler's
bankruptcy, filed a bankruptcy document stated that the books
and records of Rothstein's firm "are in disarray, inadequate and
do not contain the typical records that one would expect to be
maintained in the normal course of business."

Frauds and other misconduct would undoubtedly be detected and

Florida's legal profession as well as the Bar spared a great deal of
embarrassment and dishonor if the books of law firms were
regularly examined by independent certified fraud examiners. But
Kenneth L. Marvin, Staff Counsel, Director of Lawyer Regulation
for the Florida Bar did not respond to my suggestion to do just
that, nor was he interested in law firms as such. Unless he was
prevaricating, the Bar's information system is wholly inadequate
to the task of producing any information about the relationship of
lawyers to their firms. "We do not keep records pertaining to law
firms, since law firms do not have a license to practice law,"
Marvin stated in on October 16, 2009 email, in response to my
formal request for records appertaining to the involvement of the
lawyers of the powerful, politically connected firm of Greenberg
Traurig, a firm that has reportedly represented the Florida Bar. In
any event, a careful reader could infer from the widely published
reports on the Allen Stanford scandal that Greenberg Traurig
lawyers colluded with public regulators and lawyers for the State
of Florida in setting up the specious trust that enabled Stanford to
use his Miami office to launder most of the money he bilked from
investors or laundered for others. Banking lawyers were
astonished by the trust arrangement, as it appeared contrary to
banking law not to mention ethical standards - information as to
whether or not any of them filed complaints or inquiries with the
Bar as required by its Rules cannot be obtained from the Bar due
to the policies that allows it to conceal information from
immediate public view and destroy it in short order. "Mr. Walters,
I don't understand why you are so distrustful of the Bar. I had
never heard of the Stanford Trust until I read your writings about
it," Marvin stated. "I do not know who you originally spoke to, but
we do keep our records under the accused attorney's name and
not the subject matter. If you had asked me about the Stanford
Trust, I would have claimed no knowledge, but if you had asked
about Carlos Loumiet, I would have recognized that name and
recalled that there were newspaper articles about him."

Apparently neither Marvin nor anyone else at the Bar had

carefully read the series of Miami Herald articles about the
involvement of private and public lawyers in the forging of the
Stanford Trust. If a member of the public in want of a lawyer were
referred to Carlos E. Loumiet, one of the principal lawyers
accused in both the Hamilton Bank fraud and the Stanford Trust
fraud, and if he checks the Bar's website for public information,
he will discover that, as of December 22, 2009, Loumiet is a
member of the Bar in good standing and that there is no
disciplinary history on him for the last 10 years. Indeed, a recent
press report described him as "a distinguished member of the
Florida Bar." In fact, a file was opened and recently closed on
Loumiet in re the Hamilton Bank fraud, and another file has been
opened on him in re the Stanford fraud. Both files are hidden from
immediate public view so that the public will be kept in the dark
about the investigations unless it makes a public records request
about a specific attorney - in one instance, Bar staff denied the
existence of a file until this writer insisted that a defense lawyer
had publicly declared that disciplinary action was pending. If the
Bar in its discretion decides not to pursue a matter or decides that
discipline is unwarranted, the file is destroyed hence the Bar is
left unaccountable for its actions.

"Mr. Marvin," I responded to Marvin's email, "Thank you very

much for your revelation that The Florida Bar does not keep
records appertaining to law firms. I believe I may fairly conclude
from your statement that the Bar's information system must be
inadequate and in need of considerable improvement. As it
stands, the Bar staff apparently have no way, for example, of
producing statistics to demonstrate that there is little or no merit
in the widespread belief that the Bar favors large, powerful (i.e.
politically connected) firms such as Greenberg Traurig, wherein it
is alleged that the individual consciences are too easily
submerged. I would think that you and other persons charged
with the regulation of the profession would find the organizations
of practitioners as interesting as the individuals involved in them,
and would make sure that information was kept on that aspect for
several good reasons."

Mr. Marvin also responded on behalf of the Executive Director of

the Florida Bar and the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court
to my constructive suggestions for the improvement of
information transparency. My letter included the following
suggestion: “I respectfully suggest that a list of Pending
Complaints and Open Disciplinary Cases be maintained on the
website and regularly updated until disposed of. Thereafter the
initial and dispositive information would be maintained for 10
years on the respective website-available files of the attorneys
involved. By ‘Pending Complaints’ I mean each and every
complaint received, and by ‘Open Disciplinary Cases’ I mean each
and every complaint that Bar counsel decides to pursue. The
information available would of course include the name of the
attorney, the date and nature of the complaint and the current
status of the investigation. If a case is not opened or an
investigation not conducted on the complaint, the disposition then
posted to the attorney’s website-available file would state the
specific reason for not investigating the complaint. When an open
case is closed, the specific reason for disposition would likewise
be posted to the attorney’s website-available file. As for the
confidentiality of open files, Rule 3-7.1 (e) allows for the
disclosure of the status of specific cases under investigation. The
specification under my suggestion would be any and all open
files.”

"Please understand that I do not wish to argue with you and I do

not set policy," replied Mr. Marvin on October 27, 2009. Since he
was responding for the Executive Director and Chief Justice, it
appears that any constructive suggestions sent to the high
authorities of the Florida integrated bar would fall on deaf ears
since none of the above nor any delegates below "set policy." But
Marvin informed me that suggestions could be made to a special
citizen council controlled by the Bar; but then the Bar would have
discretion over what measures if any to adopt. The arrogance of
a public institution that does not have to answer to the public and
is a law unto itself is exceedingly dangerous to that public, and is
deserving of its contempt.

To return to the Rothstein scandal, there is little doubt that

several members of the legal community and more certainly
colleagues at the Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler itself knew about the
scam or should have known that something was seriously amiss.
Indeed, rumors were running rampant in legal circles as to the
source of Rothstein's sudden wealth and the enormous political
influence of his legal powerhouse. Lawyers had good reason to
wonder where all the money was coming from so fast, for it would
have been impossible for the law practice itself to generate such
a fabulous fortune virtually overnight. U.S. Senator George
LeMieux, a lawyer, former campaign manager and then chief of
staff to Governor Crist (who are both now calling for an end to
corruption in Florida), did not bother to look the gift horse in the
mouth at the time of receipt. He has now admitted that he did not
understand where all the money was coming from, pleading that,
"You don't look at someone who's generous and just criticize."

Perhaps Gary Phillips at Rothstein's previous firm, Phillips

Eiseinger Koss Rosenfeldt and Rothstein, could have nipped the
pathological liar in the bud some time ago, as Phillips and his
partners got rid of Rothstein after discovering he had lied to a
client about filing a complaint and a motion for injunctive relief;
but Phillips decided not to report Rothstein to the Bar because he
took the Bar's job into his own hands and erroneously determined
that lying to clients is not a legitimate grievance against a lawyer.
Bar rules require attorneys to blow the whistle on such
misconduct; therefore I forwarded the information on Phillips to
Marvin and asked whether the Bar would inquire into the matter.
A smooth-talking staff lawyer called me on December 21, 2009
and said there was no file open on Phillips but one might be
opened “at the discretion of the Bar." If a citizen filed a sworn
complaint against Phillips, I was informed, he or she would then
have access to documents appertaining to the proceedings if any.
The complainant could then reveal the information obtained -
some states make such a revelation a contempt of court. I
pointed out that citizens might not like to go on record against
attorneys for fear of retaliation. I recommended that an
independent ombudsman be created to file such complaints
based on information obtained from the press and interested
members of the public. The staff lawyer did not seem interested;
why should he be when the integrated bar does not have to
answer to the public for anything at all?

Of course the Bar would be far more effective if lawyers would

only blow the whistle on one another as the Rules of the Bar do
require, but a code of silence imposed from the top down of the
Bar integrated with the Supreme Court renders them reluctant to
do so, despite such ethical mouthing from the Bar as that of its
ethical counsel, Elizabeth Tarbert, who recently effused that, even
though lawyers may not have actual evidence of something
amiss, they cannot bury their heads in the sand if knowledge of
wrongdoing might be inferred from circumstances. Seldom are
such inferences filed with the Bar, and the ones that Bar counsel
and the Good Old Boys on the grievance committees give a free
pass to are never brought to the public's attention and all the
evidence is destroyed a year later so that the Bar may not be
brought to task for its prejudices, preferences, and negligence.

In any case, what humble lawyer would scruple to draw damning

inferences in the form of complaints against the high power that
provide not only his privilege to practice his profession but
determine his relative success in courts? He might then find
himself the defendant in disbarment proceedings presided over
by the Good Old Boys he has begged askance of.

Indeed, disbarred attorney Mark A. Adams believes he was

permanently disbarred from practicing law in Florida because he
blew the whistle on members of a powerful, politically connected
law firm, Battaglia Ross Dicus & Wein, P.A. He has in fact made
numerous public statements alleging corruption of the Florida
judiciary and the Attorney General’s office, and has accused
specific attorneys of criminal conduct. He did file a complaint
with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. The FDLE
forwarded the file (FDLE File 73-5818-134-131) to Susan Austin at
the Florida Bar on June 25, 2004. According to Adams, the Florida
Bar, instead of pursuing the matter on its own initiative, as it is
allowed to do by its own Rules, simply dismissed it on a
technicality, that the complaint was not sworn by a complainant.
The Florida Bar has been accused by watchdogs of routinely rat-
holing numerous grievances against attorneys without inquiry;
however that might be, evidence supporting Adam’s claim, that
his complaints were ignored, is not retrievable from the Bar
because of its record-destruction policy, a Supreme Court policy
that creates an appearance of impropriety as it obviously would
allow its strong “arm”, the Florida Bar, to behave irresponsibly
since its deeds are rendered inscrutable.

I asked Adams if he had some concrete evidence of a quid pro

quo between the Battaglia firm lawyers and the judicial officers
regarding his allegations of criminal conduct.

“Battaglia and his clients were able to get a number of judges to

ignore black letter law and the facts to deprive my former client
of the pay that was due to him, to make my former client pay
Battaglia's client, and to enter a judgment against me and use a
baseless criminal charge to attempt to extort money from me.
That's explains the benefits to Battaglia. Regarding the evidence
of the benefit to the judges, why would judges ignore the law and
the facts and expose themselves to liability unless they were
receiving a benefit?”

That is a good question, one that should have been thoroughly

investigated by the Florida Bar. We are left to speculate, that the
judges could be ignorant, or they could believe they are above
the law for some reason or another, say, answering a higher call,
or they could be getting definite benefits - favors, payoffs et
cetera. Concrete evidence of the latter would of course definitely
interest Federal investigators who are not subject to the powerful
machinations of the integrated state bar and bench.

In Rothstein's case almost everyone knew or suspected that

something was seriously amiss, but nobody was willing to draw
derogatory inferences until federal authorities swooped in to end
the colossal fraud. And then not a single competent member of
the legal circle was surprised, for the fall of Rothstein & Firm was
not a matter of if but of when, so obvious had the likelihood of
fraud become. Now the general public has some reason to
assume, from all the evidence brought forward and the
allegations being made, that the integrated bar of Florida is a
legally constituted racketeering organization. Therefore an
historical recapitulation of the monstrosity called the "integrated
bar" is in order:

During the Great Depression, Americans were once again sorely

plagued by hordes of lawyers, wherefore they were apt to raise
once again the revolutionary cry, "Kill the lawyers! Burn down the
courthouses!" The high courts of several states, in a supreme
exercise of judicial vanity, circled wagons and gazed into their
self-flattering mirrors, each reflecting the mutual opinion that
supreme courts possess an inherent and absolute power to
regulate the practice of law in their respective states without
interference from the legislative or executive branches of
government. A strong jurisprudential argument was made that
only an organization of lawyers dominated by a supreme court
are competent to regulate lawyers given the complexity of the
law and its practice and the native tendency of litigious lawyers to
independent and relativistic thinking. Therefore all lawyers who
want to practice should be integrated into a state supreme court
system so that the court might adopt and enforce standard
scruples thus effectively curb the abuses people were suffering at
the hands of unscrupulous lawyers - Plato's Socrates might argue
that lawyers are unscrupulous sophists by virtue of their trade.

In Florida, the "integrated bar" concept was embraced and

eventually enshrined in the state constitution by way of
amendment. But not all states bought the integrated bar
movement - independent-minded lawyers were naturally opposed
to paying dues and being beholden for their livelihood to a ruling
hierarchy of their own disparaged kind. Naturally, there are many
opposing arguments to an integrated bar. The absolute
integration of bench and bar would belie the very independence
from political influence that the judiciary is wont to brag about as
its chief virtue when claiming that it protects people from
legislative politics. An integrated bar would allow the same forces
that rule lawyer-dominated legislatures to rule the judiciary as
well, with impunity and without debate from an opposition.
Politics is the distribution of power, and the integrated bar, having
arrogated to itself the sole power to regulate the most powerful
profession pursuant to the prejudices of the dominating political
power of its members, would become a virtually unregulated
power. There could be no genuine "integrity" in such an
integrated bar, no virtue except traditional loyalty to one's own
kind or else. There could be no real balance of powers here.
Surely an absolutely independent integrated bar would tend to
the absolute corruption of every state in which it is
institutionalized. Such an institution would deserve the
unmitigated contempt of a democratic people if only the people
fully understood its nature. That understanding has not been
advanced by the so-called fourth branch of government, the
press.

A well seasoned investigative reporter with the McClatchy

newspaper organization informed this commentator that
integrated bar organizations routinely ignore the transgressions of
powerful law firms while diligently pressing complaints against
small practitioners, who are easily intimidated by the prospect of
losing their livelihood. This, in effect, keeps the rank-and-file in
line with the ruling political power. We seldom or never see a
critical report from the mainstream media addressing the Bar's
favoritism and negligence, which appears to rise to a fraud on the
public. Instead, the public is fed pabulum, a steady diet of press
releases praising the Bar's good works, much of it well deserved,
and an occasional press release notifying the public that a few
small fry have been disciplined. Once in awhile a big fish is fried
by the Bar, after he has been caught by law enforcement and
convicted.
The so-called fourth branch of government, the press, ignores the
crucial, political point, obscured by the gospel, as it were, or at
least the true perspective is never published. After all,
notwithstanding the public's low albeit envious regard for lawyers
as a class, it is difficult to elucidate such an obscured subject as
the "integrated bar" so that a clamor might be raised against its
inherent conflict of interest and organizational hypocrisy.
Furthermore, since the Bar integrated with the Supreme Court is
in effect an arm or organ of the Court, since it is thus a law unto
itself lorded over by its presiding power, nothing short of a clamor
to kill lawyers and burn down courthouses could cause it to
mitigate its arrogance and effect the radical reform needed, the
disintegration of the integrated bar. Finally, the press is not wont
to alienate the hand that feeds it with choice information and
free-speech rulings.

Yet disintegration of the integrated bar is still possible, as is

evidenced by England's Legal Services Act of 2007, which
mandated the end of the legal profession's self-regulation and
separated its regulation from its self-interested representative or
political function. The Legal Services Board was appointed on
September 1, 2008 pursuant to the Act, and it will be the single
independent oversight regulator of legal services in England. The
Board will supervise all licensing authorities and oversee lawyer
regulation. It is appointed entirely by the government. Most of the
appointees are non-lawyers chosen for their regulatory and other
public affairs experience, and some are consumer advocates. An
Office of Legal Complaints will be established and monitored by
the Board, completely independent of the profession, and will
deal with consumer complaints according to an ombudsman
scheme. The Complaints Commissioner must be a non-lawyer.

Much more can and should be said on this subject. The Florida's
integrated bar does deserve a great deal of credit for its many
good deeds, but until significant and radical reform of the
regulatory function is obtained, its pollution by political factions
will create at least the appearance of impropriety, and its
negligence alone deserves the public utterance of contempt.