SC06-323 – The Florida Bar v. John Louis Walkden

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Supreme Court » 2007 » SC06-323 – The Florida Bar v. John Louis Walkden – Corrected Opinion

SC06-323 – The Florida Bar v. John Louis Walkden – Corrected Opinion

State: Florida

Court: Supreme Court

Docket No: sc06-323

Case Date: 03/01/2007

Plaintiff: SC06-323 – The Florida Bar

Defendant: John Louis Walkden – Corrected Opinion

Preview:Supreme Court of Florida
No. SC06-323
THE FLORIDA BAR,
Complainant,
vs.
JOHN LOUIS WALKDEN,
Respondent.
[February 22, 2007]
CORRECTED OPINION
PER CURIAM.
This matter is before the Court on The Florida Bar’s petition for contempt
against John L. Walkden.   We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.   For
the reasons expressed below, we grant the Bar’s petition for contempt and disbar
Walkden from The Florida Bar.
BACKGROUND
On February 20, 2006, The Florida Bar filed a petition for contempt and for
an order to show cause against John L. Walkden.  The Bar alleged Walkden
continued to practice law after he was suspended by the Court.  The facts as

alleged by the Bar, which Walkden did not dispute or deny in his response, or as
established by the attachments to the Bar’s petition, which includes a transcript of
the hearing before the referee in Florida Bar v. Walkden, 917 So. 2d 196 (Fla.
2005) (No. SC04-1555), on June 3, 2005, established the following sequence of
events.
On April 11, 2002, the Court suspended Walkden for ninety days, to
commence on May 11, 2002, followed by probation for three years.  See Fla. Bar
v. Walkden, 817 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 2002).  One term of Walkden’s probation was
that he was to comply with his Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc., (FLA) contract,
which required him to abstain from alcohol and to undergo random drug and
alcohol tests to verify his compliance.   Under the terms of this negotiated plea
agreement, Walkden was to be suspended for ninety-one days if he failed to abide
by the terms of his probation.  During the term of his suspension, Walkden
maintained his client trust account; disbursed money from a trust to nine heirs; and
prepared an inventory and accounting of trust assets and expenses, a non-probate
pleading.  Walkden’s ninety-day suspension period ended on or about August 11,
2002, and he began his three-year probationary period.
Some time in the middle of September 2002, Walkden went to an FLA
meeting intoxicated.  FLA sent a letter to the Bar, which filed a petition for
contempt and order to show cause in this Court.  That petition was assigned case
- 2 -

number SC02-2146.  The Bar was seeking to have Walkden suspended for ninety-
one days for violating the terms of his probation.
Walkden opposed the Bar until February 2004, when he tested positive for
alcohol in a random test.  At that point, he notified the Court that he did not oppose
the imposition of a ninety-one day suspension.  On March 11, 2004, the Court
entered an order suspending Walkden for ninety-one days for breaching the terms
of his FLA contract.  See Fla. Bar v. Walkden, 871 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 2004).  That
suspension commenced on April 12, 2004.  Walkden has been suspended from the
practice of law continuously since then, having never successfully petitioned for
reinstatement as required by Rules Regulating the Florida Bar 3-5.1(e)
(suspensions) and 3-7.10 (reinstatement and readmission procedures).1
On April 12, 2004, Walkden was still the attorney of record in four cases in
the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Court.  He failed to notify the judges, opposing
counsel, and his remaining clients of his suspension.  On May 13, 2004, he
attended an evidentiary hearing to determine an attorney’s fee award with his
client.  During the hearing, he cross-examined the witnesses who testified for the
other side.  In June 2004, he received a call from opposing counsel in a different
case, an age discrimination suit, who made a settlement offer of $35,000.  Walkden
communicated the offer to his client.
1.   Walkden petitioned for reinstatement in Case No. SC05-743.  His petition
was denied on May 4, 2006.  See Fla. Bar re Walkden, 931 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2006).
- 3 -

On June 18, 2004, the Bar received notice that Walkden was still practicing
law and opened an investigation.  On August 3, 2004, the Bar filed a petition for
contempt and order to show cause against Walkden.  By the end of the month the
Court had issued an order to show cause and an order for the appointment of a
referee.  According to Walkden, he ultimately notified his clients of his suspension
and filed the necessary affidavit with the Bar in late September or early October
2004 for the suspension that began April 12, 2004.
A formal hearing was held before the referee on June 3, 2005.   The Bar was
seeking disbarment.  The referee recommended a one-year suspension, which the
Court approved in an order dated November 3, 2005.
After the formal hearing in June, Walkden continued to engage in the
practice of law.  On July 13, 2005, Arnold M. Strauss, Jr., a lawyer representing
the buyers in a real estate transaction, wrote to Walkden, as the lawyer representing
the owners of the real estate, asking to schedule a closing on the property.
Walkden responded in writing on July 14, 2005, on his law office letterhead.
Below his signature were the printed words: “John L. Walkden, Esq.”  On August
3, 2005, Gene Albert, Chairman of the Legal Committee for the development
where the property was located, wrote a letter to Strauss, with a copy to Walkden,
relating that he had received correspondence from both concerning the property
dispute.
- 4 -

On September 1, 2005, Walkden filed a Complaint for Slander of Title, for
Cancellation of Document, and for Posting of Adequate Bond, in the Seventeenth
Judicial Circuit Court.   The complaint was signed by Walkden under the heading:
“Law Offices of John L. Walkden, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.”  That same day, a
summons filed in the case referenced “John L. Walkden, plaintiff’s attorney.”
Strauss wrote to the Bar on September 15, 2005, in reference to “Estate of Feder
sale to Beaudoin.”   Strauss, referring to Walkden, wrote: “I have been working
with this attorney for six (6) months.”   According to the Bar, it received notice that
Walkden was still practicing on September 16, 2005, probably referring to its
receipt of Strauss’s letter.
Shortly after the Court’s November 3, 2005, order in Case No. SC04-1555,
suspending Walkden for one year, see Fla. Bar v. Walkden, 917 So. 2d 196 (Fla.
2005), the Bar wrote to Walkden with directions concerning what he was required
to do to comply with the Court’s order of suspension.  As of the date of the Bar’s
petition in this case, February 20, 2006, Walkden had failed to notify the necessary
parties of his suspension and to provide the Bar with his affidavit of compliance.
The Florida Bar’s petition asked the Court to issue an order to show cause as
to why Walkden should not be disbarred for continuing to practice law while
suspended.  The Court issued an order to show cause on March 6, 2006, to which
- 5 -

Walkden filed a response on March 21, 2006.   The Bar filed its reply on March 30,
2006.
In his response, Walkden admitted that he filed a legal action on behalf of
the estate, but claimed he was not authorized by the client to do so.  He further
argued that he made no effort to have the action served on the defendant after it
was filed.  Although he admitted his actions warranted a sanction, he argued that
disbarment is not warranted.  He further argued that it would be a violation of the
principle of double jeopardy for the Court to take into consideration his prior
misconduct in Bar proceedings previously closed.
In its reply, the Bar responded that Walkden admitted that he had filed the
action while suspended.  Further, he filed it just three months after the hearing
before the referee which involved his earlier acts of practicing law while
suspended, so his action was knowing, willful, and intentional.  His testimony at
the hearing concerning his continued practice of law during his suspension was
false.  The Bar argued that Walkden’s continuing misconduct, false testimony, and
failure to provide the necessary parties with notice of his suspension demonstrated
his profound and unyielding contempt for this Court’s orders.  It is the Bar’s
position that Walkden should be immediately disbarred.  We agree.
ANALYSIS
- 6 -

As noted by the Bar, this Court views cumulative misconduct more seriously
than an isolated instance of misconduct.   Fla. Bar v. Carlon, 820 So. 2d 891, 899
(Fla. 2002).  In determining the appropriate discipline, we consider prior
misconduct and cumulative misconduct, and treat cumulative misconduct more
severely than isolated misconduct.  Disbarment is appropriate where, as here, there
is a pattern of misconduct and a history of discipline.  Additionally, cumulative
misconduct of a similar nature warrants an even more severe discipline than might
dissimilar conduct.   Fla. Bar v. Vining, 761 So. 2d 1044, 1048 (Fla. 2000).
Walkden, who has been suspended since April 12, 2004, has continued to
engage in the practice of law.    When the Bar discovered that he was still practicing
law and instituted proceedings to have him held in contempt for doing so, he
continued to practice law.  After a referee conducted a formal hearing to determine
what the appropriate sanction should be, he continued to practice law.  After the
Court imposed a one-year suspension for the instances of practice which the Bar
alleged and proved at the formal hearing, he continued to practice law.
Walkden’s acts of practice, which occurred after the formal hearing before
the referee, i.e., after June 3, 2005, were not addressed at the formal hearing and
were not considered by the Court in deciding to suspend Walkden for one year.
These acts of practice are new, unsanctioned acts of contempt, even though many
of them preceded the Court’s order suspending him for an additional year.  His
- 7 -

proven misconduct following the Court’s order of November 3, 2005, consisted of
failing to provide the necessary parties with notice of his suspension and failing to
provide the affidavit of compliance to the Bar.  See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 3-
5.1(g).
The Court’s consideration of earlier acts of misconduct for which Walkden
has already been sanctioned does not present a double jeopardy issue, as argued by
Walkden.  The Florida Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions expressly
provide for consideration of other prior acts of misconduct, whether the same or
different in nature, in determining the appropriate discipline.   See Fla. Stds.
Imposing Law Sancs. 8.1 (disbarment appropriate when lawyer intentionally
violates the terms of a prior disciplinary order or has been suspended for the same
or similar misconduct in the past); 9.22(a) (prior disciplinary offenses as
aggravating factors); 9.22(c) (a pattern of misconduct as aggravating factor); and
9.22(d) (multiple offenses as aggravating factor).
This is the second time Walkden has come before the Court on contempt
charges for continuing to practice law while suspended.  The first time, the Court
suspended him for an additional year.  Heedlessly, Walkden continued to practice
law even while those proceedings were pending against him.
The Court has sanctioned Walkden three times previously, imposing
increasingly heavier sanctions, progressing from a ninety-day suspension, to a
- 8 -

ninety-one-day suspension (for violating the terms of his probation), to a one-year
suspension.  The next level of discipline is disbarment.
This Court has not hesitated to disbar attorneys who have continued to
engage in the practice of law while suspended.  See Fla. Bar v. Forrester, 916 So.
2d 647, 654 (Fla. 2005) (disbarring suspended attorney for hiring an associate to
sign pleadings and perform public aspects of running the law office, while
directing matters from behind the scenes); Fla. Bar v. Heptner, 887 So. 2d 1036,
1045 (Fla. 2004) (disbarring attorney for continuing to practice while suspended);
Fla. Bar v. McAtee, 674 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 1996) (disbarring attorney in light of his
misconduct, which included practicing law while suspended, and disciplinary
history).  In Florida Bar v. Brown, 635 So. 2d 13, 13-14 (Fla. 1994), this Court
stated:                                                                                   “Clear violation of any order or disciplinary status that denies an attorney
the license to practice law generally is punishable by disbarment, absent strong
extenuating factors.”
Walkden has not presented or argued the existence of any strong extenuating
factors in this case.  He has not offered any justification for his actions, other than
the nonsensical claim that he was not authorized by the client to file the very legal
action that he filed.  In our view, this fact makes his misconduct more egregious,
not less.
- 9 -

There are no factual issues that necessitate the appointment of a referee.  A
referee is usually appointed to serve as the fact-finder for the Court.  Here,
Walkden does not dispute the facts as presented by the Bar.  Many of these facts
come from his own testimony at the hearing before the referee in Case No. SC04-
1555.   Further, many of the remaining facts are established by the documentary
evidence attached to the Bar’s present petition, which Walkden concedes is
accurate.  In terms of judicial economy, the appointment of a referee is
unnecessary.
CONCLUSION
The Florida Bar’s petition for contempt is granted.  John L. Walkden is held
in contempt of this Court and is immediately disbarred from the practice of law in
this state for a period of five years effective, nunc pro tunc, April 12, 2004.
It is so ordered.
LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ.,
concur.
ANSTEAD, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion.
THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DISBARMENT.
- 10 -

ANSTEAD, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the majority opinion in all respects save one: I would impose a
three-year suspension for respondent’s misconduct.
Original Proceeding - The Florida Bar
John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, Tallahassee, Florida, and Lorraine C.
Hoffmann, Bar Counsel, the Florida Bar, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
for Complainant
Kevin P. Tynan of Richardson and Tynan, P.L.C., Tamarac, Florida,
for Respondent
- 11 -

Download sc06-323.pdf