florida bar v. paul friedman case no. sc02-2430

8/9/2019 Florida Bar v. Paul Friedman Case No. SC02-2430

1/10

D21Consent Judgment

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA(Before a Referee)

THE FLORIDA B AR,Complainant, Case No. SC02-2430v. TFB File No. 2001-00,358(8B)PAUL D.FRIEDMAN,Respondent.

Respondent, PAUL D. FRIEDMAN, files this Conditional Guilty Plea forConsent Judgment pursuant to Rule 3-7.9, Rules of Discipline of The Florida B ar, andsays:

1. Respondent is, and at all times was, a member of The Florida Bar,subject to the jurisdiction and disciplinary rules of the Supreme Court of F lorida.

2. Respondent admits that he has violated Ru les 4-1.4(b) (Duty to ExplainMatters to Client), 4-1.5(a) (Prohibited Fees), 4-1.7(b) (Duty to Avoid Limitation onIndependent Professional Judgment), 4-1.8(a) (acquiring interest adverse to Client),former Rule 4-1.15 (Safekeeping Property), 4-5.1(c)(2) (Responsibilities of aPartner), and 4-5.6(b) (Restrictions on Right to Practice), of the Rules Regulating TheFlorida Bar by the follow ing acts:


2/10

a. In 1996, Respondent was a par tner and shareholder in the law firm ofFriedman, Rodriguez, Ferraro & St. Louis (hereinafter referred to as FRF&S), withoffices in Miami, Florida.

b. In 1996, the partners and shareholders in FRF&S were Francisco RamonRodriguez (President and managing partner), Diane Deighton Ferraro (VicePresident), Roland Raymond St. Louis, Jr. (Vice President), and Respondent(Secretary/Treasurer).

c. In July 1996, FRF&S represented twenty (20) plaintiffs in variouslawsuits as well as claims not yet filed against E.I. Dupont De Nemours andCompany, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Dupont"), The lawsuits and claimsincluded claims for damages to nursery and other crops caused by Dupont's allegedlydefective chemical Benlate 50 DF.

d. By on or about July 3, 1996, Respondent's partners entered intosettlement negotiations with Dupont.

e. By on or about July 5,1996, Dupont had proposed to Francisco RamonRodriguez and Roland Raymond St. Louis, Jr. that, in order to settle the cases,Dupont wanted to be assured that FRF&S would not thereafter represent Benlateclaimants against Dupont. Respondent was informed by his partners tha t they did notagree to that proposal.


3/10

f. The aforementioned proposal isprohibited byRule4-5.6(b) which states:"A lawyer shall not participate in offering or

making an agreement in which a restriction on theright to practice is part of the settlement of acontroversy between private parties."

g. During July 1996, Respondent, as a partner and shareholder, attendedmeetings of the partners of FRF&S, at which the status of the Benlate cases was

discussed, including Dupont's proposed restriction on the practice of FRF&S.h. At a partner meeting it was discussed that Dupont wanted FRF&S

restricted in its future practice from representing clients in matters adverse to Dupont.In connection therewith, Francisco Ramon Rodriguez assigned a senior associate theresponsibilityofperforming legal research regarding whether Dupont's proposal waspermissible. Francisco Ramon Rodriguez and Roland Raymond St. Louis, Jr. alsothen informed the other partners that they believed a settlement with Dupont forFRF&S' clients would be reached without any practice restriction agreement havingto be a part thereof. Respondent's response was that in any event the subject matterdid not need to be addressed unless Dupont again raised the matter (and, if so, afterthe partners had a chance to review Dupont's position in writing).


4/10

i. At the aforementioned partner meetings, there was sufficient time toavoid the consequences of the proposed restriction on the right to practice, butRespondent failed to take reasonable remedial action even though Respondent wasof the belief that any settlement agreement reached with Dupont would not containsuch provision.

j. On or about August 7, 1996, Respondent's partners Francisco RamonRodriguez and Roland Raymond St. Louis entered into a settlement agreement with

Dupont for most of the Benlate claims for approximately 59 million dollars. Thesettlement agreement also provided that Dupont would pay $245,000.00 directly toFRF&S as reimbursement for costs incurred.

k. The aforementioned payment of $245,000.00 was to be received fromsomeone other than the client and is a prohibited fee.

1. Immediatelyafter entering into the aforementioned settlement agreementon or about August 8th, 1996, Respondent's partners Roland Raymond St. Louis, Jr.and Francisco Ramon Rodriguez entered into a secret side agreement with Dupont,which is set forth by photocopy below:


5/10

. Having completed the negotiation of ----- dall clour existing Benlate'client., ve^have agreed.^offer of engagement by E.I. duponVk/of$6,445,000 (payable inyou have retained us for the agreed fee of$64 nderIdvance not later than August 9, 1996, *%B tothe Settlementwire transfer instructions; attached at'/tunsoecified workAgreement dated August^ 7, *6J'**fitters for additionalor consulting concerning ttoM,ommencirig immediatelyremuneration at our t??dard k** behalf of our existingupon completion of all activities nA t o .aid SettlementBenlate* clients (as identified jn toWW-t A d andthatAgreement). We have agreed that thia fe'J* Opportunities thatoSr engagement may require us to forego ^/frovidedherein,we would otherwise be free to P- 0EOperate7 asi^ or aid anywe will not engage or participate in, cooperat ^ t dwarrantparty in any Benlate'-related-litigation. The un .y . _that they have authority to execute this^nay be executed and delivered in Pwhich shall constitute one and the samedelivered by facsimile transmission, withsend a fully executed orig'1 DV tocourier. This Agreement is-the August 7, 1996Settlement

s A mentrts/ all f

ceBient/ and may bec ty'obligatedtopay overnightthe effectiveness ofthe settlementitcourier. Th'is Agreement is contingent upon tne -",-Uement-the August 7, 1996Settlement Agreement^ it AgreementAgreement is cancelled or voide* * fay jJs 'claiiaOfnorshall b'e null andvoid and shall not^give rise^^tshallbeconstitute any basis for disqualification. This A*maintained in strictest confidence.

MAN, RODRIGUEZ, FEKBAKOI ST. I>UIS, P.A.

AugustE.I. DO PONT DE NEMOU*S MJO COBPMUr

BY' J2


6/10


7/10

s. Respondent did not inform the clients of the secret side agreement, norexplain its contents to them.

t. Respondent's exercise of his independent professional judgment wasmaterially limited by his responsibilities to his partners and to his ow n pecuniaryinterest.

u. On or about August 12, 1996, FRF&S received a wire transfer of$6,445,000.00 from Dupont in accordance with the secret side agreement.Respondent, on behalf of FRF&S, accepted the money from Dupont.

v. The aforementioned acceptance of $6,445,000.00 was in violation ofRule 4-5.6(b) (Restriction on R ight to Practice) and is therefo re a prohibited fee.

w. On or about Augu st 16, 1996, FRF&S received a wire transfer of$59,055,000.00 from Dupont for settlement of the Benlate claims.

x. Respondent, on behalf of FRF&F, placed both the aforementionedamounts received from Dup ont in the same trust account at Northern Trust Bank,thereby comm ingling FRF&S funds with the clients funds in violation of former Rule4-1.15 (Safekeeping property), although all funds were duly accounted for.

y. Respondent assisted his partners in preparing settlement closingstatements w hich included a provision that FRF&S would keep the interest earned onthe clients' funds while being held in the trust account. That provision was not in the


8/10

best interest of the clients and FRF&S thereby knowingly acquired a pecuniaryinterest adverse to the clients.

z. Thereafter, Respondent accepted his approximately 24% share of the6.445 million dollar secret side agreement payment, which was in excess of$1,000,000.00.

aa. By accepting the proceeds of the secret side agreement, Respondentcondoned or ratified its terms and, as a partner, is responsible for the acts of his thenpartners Raymond Roland St. Louis, Jr., Francisco Ramon Rodriguez and DianeFejraro.

3. As an appropriate discipline for such misconduct, Respondent agrees toa suspension for ninety (90) days, and to pay restitution to the clients by returninglegal fees which he received in the amount of $910,000.00 by payment to theplaintiffs inCivil Case No. 98-2781-CA, Division J,Eighth Judicial Circuit, &CivilCase No. 2000-CA-2704, Eighth Judicial Circuit, as well as to plaintiffs in relatedcases brought by former clients, and to pay The Florida Bar's taxable costs of$7,319.96.

4. Respondent acknowledges that this Conditional GuiltyPlea for ConsentJudgment is tendered freely, voluntarily and without fear or threat of coercion.


9/10

5. Respondent acknowledges that he has been afforded all procedural andsubstantive due process guarantees regarding these disciplinary proceedings, and thatfor the purpose of tendering this Conditional Guilty Plea for Consent Judgment,Respondent hereby waives any objections relative to the denial of the same.

6. If this plea is not approved by the Supreme Court of Florida, it is of noeffect and neither the plea nor the statements contained herein can be used againstRespondent in any way.

7. Respondent agrees to pay the costs incurred by The Florida Bar inbringing this action when this Consent Judgment is tendered. If the Supreme Courtdoes not approve this Consent Judgment, said costs will be returned to Respondent.

8. Had a formal hearing been held, Respondent would have shown thefollowing mitigating factors under Standard 9.32 of the Florida Standards forImposing Lawyer Sanctions:

(a) absence of a prior disciplinary record(g) character or reputation(e) Full and voluntary disclosure(1) remorse - Respondent has admitted the wrongful nature of his acts

and voluntarily took steps to compensate the clients. He hasalready paid the restitution of $910,000.00 to clients


10/10

9. Should the Supreme Court of Florida approve this Conditional GuiltyPlea for Consent Judgment, Respondent hereby agrees and acknowledges that samewill not be the subject of future modification.

DATE Paijl D. Friedman, Respondent1111 BrickelrAve., Suite 2050Miami, FL 33131-3125(305) 377-4100Florida Bar No. 266493

DATE Robert C. Joseist^rg800 City Natfoaal Bank B uilding25 W Flag ler StreetMiami, FL 33130-1712(305) 358-2800Florida Bar No. 40856

10

florida bar v. paul friedman case no. sc02-2430

Documents