letter to gwynne alice young, florida bar president

7/29/2019 Letter to Gwynne Alice Young, Florida Bar President

1/64

VIA UPS No. 1Z64589FP291704607 February 14, 2013Email [email protected]

Gwynne Alice YoungPresident, The Florida BarCarlton Fields, P.A.

4221 W. Boy Scout Boulevard, Suite 1000Tampa, FL 33601-3239

Dear Madam Bar President:

Thank you and the Florida Bar for the Hawkins Report, a.k.a. the Hawkins Commission onReview of Discipline System, May 2012. The Florida Bar should be commended for publishingthe many negative and critical responses to its surveys.

The ABA McKay Report recommended in 1992 elimination of local discipline componentswhich it claimed foster cronyism as well as prejudice against unpopular respondents. The

ABA Clark Report reached a similar conclusion in 1970. Unfortunately, forty-three (43) yearslater the Florida Bar still relies on local discipline components in its discipline system.

This issue and others are presented in the attached Petitioners Supplemental Brief, and SeparateVolume Appendices, in Petition No. 12-7747 for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of theUnited States. A U.P.S. Proof of Delivery shows the Brief was delivered at 10:21 AM today.Please excuse the inadvertent typos due to the undersigneds disability and mental impairment.

Your personal involvement in this matter is shown in the Brief on page 9:

Gwynne A. Young was one of three Florida Bar Board of Governors for the Thirteenth

Judicial Circuit who reviewed this discipline matter in 2007. (Appendix 8). Disciplineresponsibility and authority for the Board of Governors is found in the table of authoritiescited. Gwynne A. Young is currently the President of The Florida Bar.

On another matter, attorney Eugene P. Castagliuolo continues to send me unwanted email, whichI suppose is explained to an extent by his admission to having mental problems. I will contactyou separately about Mr. Castagliuolo, and the suggestion of emergency suspension made underRule 3-5.2 which I submitted to Bar Counsel Mr. Littlewood October 18, 2012.

Kindly provide any public records related to Petition No. 12-7747. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Neil J . Gillespie8092 SW 115th LoopOcala, Florida 34481

cc: service list


2/64

Service List

Gwynne Alice Young, President, The Florida [email protected]

Eugene Keith Pettis, President-elect, The Florida [email protected]

John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, The Florida [email protected]

Paul F. Hill, General Counsel, The Florida [email protected]

John Thomas Berry, Director, Legal Division, The Florida [email protected]

Kenneth Lawrence Marvin, Director of Lawyer Regulation, The Florida [email protected]

James N Watson, Jr., Chief Branch Discipline Counsel, Tallahassee Branch [email protected]

Susan Varner Bloemendaal, Chief Branch Discipline Counsel, Tampa Branch [email protected]

Leonard E Clark, Bar Counsel, Tampa Branch Office

[email protected]

Annemarie C Craft, Bar Counsel, [email protected]

Theodore P Littlewood, Bar Counsel, [email protected]

William W Wilhelm, Bar Counsel, [email protected]

Jeffrey Carter Andersen, Chair, Thirteenth Circuit [email protected]

William Lance Thompson (no email)3311 W Granada St. Unit ATampa, Florida 33629-7122


3/64

No. 12-7747Title: Neil J . Gillespie, Petitioner

v.

Thirteenth J udicial Circuit of Florida, et al.

Docketed: December 14, 2012Linked with 12A215Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh CircuitCase Nos.: (12-11028-B)Decision Date: J uly 13, 2012

Rule 12.4

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Aug 13 2012 Application (12A215) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorarifrom October 11, 2012 to December 10, 2012, submitted to J ustice Thomas.

Sep 13 2012 Application (12A215) granted by J ustice Thomas extending the time to file untilDecember 10, 2012.

Dec 10 2012 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in formapauperis filed. (Response due J anuary 14, 2013)

Dec 20 2012 Waiver of right of respondents Rayan Christopher Rodems; and Barker,

Rodems & Cook, P.A. to respond filed.

J an 24 2013 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 15, 2013.

Feb 13 2013 Supplemental brief of petitioner Neil J . Gillespie filed. (Distributed)

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~

Attorneys for Petitioner:

Neil J . Gillespie 8092 SW 115th Loop (352) 854-7807

Ocala, FL 34481

[email protected]

Party name: Neil J . Gillespie

Attorneys for Respondents:

Ryan Christopher Rodems Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. (813)-489-1001

Counsel of Record 501 East Kennedy Blvd., Suite 790

Tampa, FL 33602

Party name: Rayan Christopher Rodems; and Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.

et for 12-7747 http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfile

2 2/15/2013


4/64

No: 12-7747_______________________

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

____________________

NEIL J. GILLESPIE, ET AL, - PETITIONERS

vs.

THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, FLORIDA, ET AL, - RESPONDENTS

________________________

PETITIONERS SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF

IN PETITION NO. 12-7747 FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

____________________

Submitted February 13, 2013

by

Neil J. Gillespie,

the petitioner appearing pro se, a nonlawyer,

adult man disabled with physical and mental impairments.

8092 SW 115th Loop

Ocala, Florida 34481Telephone: (352) 854-7807Email: [email protected]


5/64

ii

LIST OF PARTIES

All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of all partiesto the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this petition is as follows:

___________________

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, no. 12-11213District Court no: 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS

Civil rights and disability law.Misuse and denial of justice under the color of law.

Plaintiff: (1)Neil J. Gillespie

Defendants: (10 +5 individually)

Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, FloridaClaudia Rickert Isom, Circuit Judge, and individually (Fla. Bar ID 200042)James M. Barton, II, Circuit Judge, and individually (Fla. Bar ID 189239)Martha J. Cook, Circuit Judge, and individually (Fla. Bar ID 242640)David A. Rowland, Court Counsel, and individually (Fla. Bar ID 861987)Gonzalo B. Casares, ADA Coordinator, and individually*Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.**Ryan Christopher Rodems, Attorney at Law (Fla. Bar ID: 947652)The Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A.Robert W. Bauer, Attorney at Law (Fla. Bar ID: 11058)

* ** NO PARTY INTEREST,seePetitioners Rule 12.6 Notice to the Clerk of the Court,submitted January 22, 2013 (Nominal parties)

___________________

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, no. 12-11028District Court no: 5:11-cv-00539-WTH-TBS

Civil rights and disability law, civil RICO, antitrust, commerce, estate claims.Misuse and denial of justice under the color of law.

Plaintiffs: (2)

Neil J. GillespieEstate of Penelope Gillespie (deceased)

Defendants: (4 +1 individually)Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, FloridaJames M. Barton, II, Circuit Court Judge, and individually (Fla. Bar ID 189239)The Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A.Robert W. Bauer, Attorney at Law (Fla. Bar ID: 11058)


6/64

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF PARTIES ......................................................................................................................ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................................iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED............................................................................................iv

PETITIONERS SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF.................................................................................1

INTERVENING MATTERS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF THE PETITION..........1-4

Does a Senior Status Federal Judge have Article III authority?Intervening Matters And Florida Bar Complaints.Local Discipline Components And The Hawkins Report.

THE LAWYER-JUDGE BIAS IN THE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM...................................5

NUMQUAM DIXERUNT LEGEM NOBIS OBSERVANDAM ESSE.......................................6

THE SECRET LIFE OF JUDGES.................................................................................................7

LOCAL DISCIPLINE COMPONENTS - FATAL DEFECT IN FLORIDA DISCIPLINE..........8

THE FLORIDA BAR HAKINS REPORT - MAY 2012..............................................................11

CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................14

INDEX TO APPENDIX

APPENDIX A.............Results of the Survey on The Florida Bars Disciplinary System,Appendix E to The Florida Bar Hawkins Report, May 2012..................end

INDEX TO SEPARATE VOLUME APPENDICES

SEPARATE VOLUME APPENDIX

THE FLORIDA BAR HAWKINS REPORT - MAY 2012

SEPARATE VOLUME APPENDIXAre Senior Judges Unconstitutional? 92Cornell Law Review453 (2007)

SEPARATE VOLUME APPENDIXAppendices 1 through 13


7/64

iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

AUTHORITIES PAGE NUMBER

The Florida Bar v. Winn, 208 So.2d 809 (Fla. 1968) 3

The Florida Bar Hawkins Report, May 2012 11-15Hawkins Commission on Review of Discipline System,May 2012, Report and Recommendations, A Reportand Analysis of Targeted Aspects of the AttorneyDiscipline System

The American Bar Association (ABA) McKay Report 3, 8-10, 11,14Lawyer Regulation for A New Century: Reportof the Commission on Evaluation of DisciplinaryEnforcement. February 1992

The American Bar Association (ABA) Clark Report 10Special Committee on Evaluation of DisciplinaryEnforcement, Problems and Recommendationsin Disciplinary Enforcement, June 1970

Hon. David R. Stras, Ryan W. Scott, Are Senior Judges Unconstitutional? 1, 14-1592Cornell Law Review453 (2007)

Hon. Dennis Jacobs,The Secret Life of Judges 775 Fordham L. Rev. 2855 (2007).

Benjamin H. Barton,The Lawyer-Judge Bias in the American Legal System 5Professor of Law, University of Tennessee College of LawPublisher: Cambridge University Press (December 31, 2010),ISBN-13: 978-1107004757.

Interview of Prof. Barton by Glenn Reynolds of InstaVisionUploaded January 27, 2011 on YouTube at http://youtu.be/Hbs_3lePAjE

David W. Marston, Malice Aforethought: How Lawyers Use Our Secret 6Rules to Get Rich, Get Sex, Get Even...and Get Away with ItPublisher: William Morrow & Co., (March 1991), copy provided.

ISBN-13: 978-0688077051

Rules Regulating The Florida Bar throughoutDiscipline Duties, Supreme Court of Florida, Board of Governors

Rule 31.1. Privilege to practiceA license to practice law confers no vested right to the holder thereof but is a conditionalprivilege that is revocable for cause.


8/64

v

A lawyer should view his work not as mere money getting but as service of highestorder; not as a mere occupation but as a ministry. State ex rel. Florida Bar v. Dawson,111 So.2d 427 (1959).

Rule 3-1.2 GenerallyThe Supreme Court of Florida has the inherent power and duty to prescribe standards of

conduct for lawyers, to determine what constitutes grounds for discipline of lawyers, todiscipline for cause attorneys admitted to practice law in Florida, and to revoke thelicense of every lawyer whose unfitness to practice law has been duly established.

Rule 33.1 Supreme Court of Florida; Disciplinary AgenciesThe exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida over the discipline of personsadmitted to the practice of law shall be administered in the following manner subject tothe supervision and review of the court. The following entities are hereby designated asagencies of the Supreme Court of Florida for this purpose and with the followingresponsibilities, jurisdiction, and powers. The board of governors, grievance committees,and referees shall have such jurisdiction and powers as are necessary to conduct the

proper and speedy disposition of any investigation or cause, including the power tocompel the attendance of witnesses, to take or cause to be taken the deposition ofwitnesses, and to order the production of books, records, or other documentary evidence.Each member of such agencies has power to administer oaths and affirmations towitnesses in any matter within the jurisdiction of the agency.

Where state bar and its staff counsel are designated as agencies of Supreme Court forpurpose of administering its jurisdiction to regulate admission of persons to practice oflaw and discipline of persons admitted, state bar is an arm and part of judiciary, one ofthree co-equal branches of state government; thus, state bar and its agents acting withinthe scope of their office are protected from liability for publication of defamatory matter

by absolute privilege. Mueller v. The Florida Bar, App. 4 Dist., 390 So.2d 449 (1980).

The Supreme Court alone has power to discipline attorneys by grant of exclusivejurisdiction. Pantori v. Stephenson, App. 5 Dist., 384 So.2d 1357 (1980).

Power to render ultimate judgment in attorneys disciplinary proceeding rests in theSupreme Court. The Florida Bar v. Abramson, 199 So.2d 457 (1967).

Rule 33.2. Board of governors of The Florida Bar(a) Responsibility of Board. The board is assigned the responsibility of maintaining highethical standards among the members of The Florida Bar. The board shall supervise and

conduct disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the provisions of these rules.

Rule 34.1. Notice and Knowledge of Rules; Jurisdiction Over Attorneys of Other States andForeign Countries

Every member of The Florida Bar and every attorney of another state or foreign countrywho provides or offers to provide any legal services in this state is within the jurisdictionand subject to the disciplinary authority of this court and its agencies under this rule andis charged with notice and held to know the provisions of this rule and the standards ofethical and professional conduct prescribed by this court. Jurisdiction over an attorney of


9/64

vi

another state who is not a member of The Florida Bar shall be limited to conduct as anattorney in relation to the business for which the attorney was permitted to practice in thisstate and the privilege in the future to practice law in the state of Florida.

Rule 34.2. Rules of Professional ConductViolation of the Rules of Professional Conduct as adopted by the rules governing The

Florida Bar is a cause for discipline.

Attorney may not hide behind clients instructions in order to perpetrate fraud againstthird party. The Florida Bar v. Feige, 596 So.2d 433 (1992).

Attorney found to have violated disciplinary rules by assisting client in conduct known tobe fraudulent, failing to reveal fraud to affected person, accepting employment where hisprofessional judgment will be affected by his own personal interest, and acceptingemployment when he is witness in pending litigation, will be suspended from practice oflaw for two years. The Florida Bar v. Feige, 596 So.2d 433 (1992).

Bylaw 23.1. GenerallyThe board of governors shall be the governing body of The Florida Bar. The board ofgovernors shall have the power and duty to administer the Rules Regulating The FloridaBar, including the power to employ necessary personnel. Subject to the authority of theSupreme Court of Florida, the board of governors, as the governing body of The FloridaBar, shall be vested with exclusive power and authority to formulate, fix, determine, andadopt matters of policy concerning the activities, affairs, or organization of The FloridaBar. The board of governors shall be charged with the duty and responsibility ofenforcing and carrying into effect the provisions of the Rules Regulating The Florida Barand the accomplishment of the aims and purposes of The Florida Bar. The board ofgovernors shall direct the manner in which all funds of The Florida Bar are disbursed and

the purposes therefor and shall adopt and approve a budget for each fiscal year. Theboard of governors shall perform all other duties imposed under the Rules RegulatingThe Florida Bar and shall have full power to exercise such functions as may benecessary, expedient, or incidental to the full exercise of any powers bestowed upon theboard of governors by said rules or any amendment thereto or by this chapter.

Bylaw 29.1. Authority of board of governorsIn order to accomplish the purposes of The Florida Bar and implement the RulesRegulating The Florida Bar, including this chapter, the board of governors shall have thepower and authority to establish policies and rules of procedure on the subjects and in themanner provided in this rule.

Bylaw 29.4. Ethics(a) Rules of Procedure. The board of governors shall adopt rules of procedure governingthe manner in which opinions on professional ethics may be solicited by members of TheFlorida Bar, issued by the staff of The Florida Bar or by the professional ethicscommittee, circulated or published by the staff of The Florida Bar or by the professionalethics committee, and appealed to the board of governors of The Florida Bar.


10/64

vii

Rule 13.1. CompositionThe membership of The Florida Bar shall be composed of all persons who are admittedby the Supreme Court of Florida to the practice of law in this state and who maintaintheir membership pursuant to these rules.

Right to practice law is not a constitutionally protected privilege or immunity. State ex

rel. Florida Bar v. Sperry, 140 So.2d 587, 133 U.S.P.Q. 157 (1962), certiorari granted 83S.Ct. 148, 371 U.S. 875, 9 L.Ed.2d 113, 135 U.S.P.Q. 503, vacated 83 S.Ct. 1322, 373U.S. 379, 10 L.Ed.2d 428, 137 U.S.P.Q. 578, on remand 159 So.2d 229.

Rule 14.2. Authority; supervision(a) Authority and Responsibility. The board of governors shall have the authority andresponsibility to govern and administer The Florida Bar and to take such action as it mayconsider necessary to accomplish the purposes of The Florida Bar, subject always to thedirection and supervision of the Supreme Court of Florida.

Rule 18.1. Responsibility of board of governors

Among its other duties, the board of governors is charged with the responsibility ofenforcing the Rules of Discipline and the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Rule 110.1. ComplianceAll members of The Florida Bar shall comply with the terms and the intent ofthe Rules of Professional Conduct as established and amended by this court.

Attorney is an officer of the court and an essential component of the administration ofjustice, and, as such, his conduct is subject to judicial supervision and scrutiny. State exrel. Florida Bar v. Evans, 94 So.2d 730 (1957).

Florida Supreme Court has power to authorize investigations of professional conduct forpurpose of determining whether formal charges shall be made against an attorney.Swanson v. The Florida Bar, 1967, 381 F.2d 730, certiorari denied 88 S.Ct. 468, 389 U.S.972, 19 L.Ed.2d 463.


11/64

1

PETITIONERS SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF

Just as war is too important to leave to the generals, reform of the justice system is tooimportant to be left to lawyers and judges.

- U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, as quoted by the

American Bar Association, Coalition for Justice__________________________________

Appearing pro se, Petitioner Neil J. Gillespie (Gillespie), pursuant to Rule 15.8 of this

Court, calls attention to several intervening matters with the Florida Bar not available at the time

of the Petition and hereby submits Petitioners Supplemental Brief1.

The Petition argues the Hon. Wm. Terrell Hodges, an Article III Federal Judge, Senior

Status, relinquished the judicial power of the United States to Mr. Rodems, a Florida lawyer in

private practice. But there is another issue: Do federal judges have authority under Article III

once they elect and take senior status? The Hon. David R. Stras and Ryan W. Scott suggest no,

seeAre Senior Judges Unconstitutional? 92Cornell Law Review453 (2007). This issue is

another challenge to Article III judicial authority, after the corrupting power and influence of a

rival to the judicial power of the United States called The Florida Bar.

1Not all intervening matters are presented here; additional intervening matters include: The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) dismissed January 24, 2013 Docket No. 12554 (No.

10495), Gillespies complaint against Florida Judge Martha J. Cook, a Respondent in this Petition. Theintervening issues therein require a separate supplemental brief.

Notice was given February 6, 2013 by Mr. Castagliuolo to Florida Bar Counsel Leonard Clark, during an ethicsinquiry of Mr. Castagliuolo, of a proposed whistleblower complaint by Mr. Castagliuolo to the SocialSecurity Administration, presumably related to Gillespies disability. The intervening issues therein require aseparate supplemental brief.

The death January 11, 2013 of Aaron Swartz, a depressed computer wiz and Internet activist who hangedhimself amid government bullying during a federal prosecution. Swartzs father blamed the U.S. governmentfor his sons suicide in a eulogy: Aaron did not commit suicide he was killed by the government. And [theMassachusetts Institute of Technology] betrayed all its basic principles in helping the feds, said grieving dadRobert Swartz. This Petition also concerns the wrongful death of Gillespies Mother related to civil litigation.

The intervening issues therein require a separate supplemental brief.

A foreclosure lawsuit filed in Florida state court January 9, 2013 on Gillespies home shows attorneymisconduct, and was removed to federal court February 4, 2013, see Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. v. Neil

J. Gillespie etc, et al., case no. 5:13-cv-58-oc-10PRL, U.S. District Court, Middle District, Florida, OcalaDivision. Gillespies worsening financial condition is relevant to his motion to proceed in forma pauperis in thisPetition. The intervening issues therein require a separate supplemental brief.


12/64

2

Gillespie believes this Supplemental Brief is appropriate because no party at interest has

filed a Response to the Petition, or submitted a Waiver. The only appearance is by a nominal

Respondent, Ryan Christopher Rodems, for his nominal Respondent law firm, Barker, Rodems

& Cook, P.A.SeePetitioners Rule 12.6 Notice to the Clerk of the Court of Party Interest.

Unfortunately, Mr. Rodems engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar of this Court

by attaching a harassing note to his Waiver. SeePetitioners Verified Rule 8 Notice of Conduct

Unbecoming a Member of the Bar of this Court.

Intervening Florida Bar Matters for this Supplemental Brief AffectingQuestion Presented No. 4: Does the Supreme Court have Pendent Jurisdiction?

Bar Counsel Annemarie Craft informed Gillespie by letter January 7, 2013 of its decision

to open File No. 2013-00,540 (8B) on Gillespies RFA No. 13-7675 complaint against his former

attorney, Respondent Robert W. Bauer. (Appendix 2). Previously the Florida Bar told Gillespie

it would not consider his complaint as written. (Petition, page 21). Ms. Craft did not respond to

Gillespies letter January 10, 2013 for an explanation for the change. (Appendix 3).

Ms. Crafts correspondence included a letter to Mr. Bauer, and a Notice of Grievance

Procedures that states at paragraph 4 The grievance committee is the Bar's "grand jury."

(Appendix 2). However the Bars grievance committee bears little resemblance to an actual

grand jury, and is thus misleading. Notice of this misnomer of the Bars grand jury appears in

the trial court record in 5:10-cv-00503, Doc. 58-1, at page ID 1547, Gillespies email to James

Watson, Chief Branch Discipline Counsel for the Tallahassee Branch Office. (Appendix 4).

An actual grand jury consists of 16-23 disinterested persons who consider testimony

given under oath in a matter, issue a report, bill or presentment that is signed by all the members,

and which is filed with the clerk of the court, and is generally a public record.

In contrast, the Bars grievance committee is a parody of a grand jury, a local discipline

component, and may consist of five lawyers, often friends and cronies of the subject lawyer,


13/64

3

who consider hearsay and unworn testimony, all of which is confidential unless there is a rare

finding of probable cause. The ABA McKay Report found Local components, such as local bar

investigative committees, foster cronyism as well as prejudice against unpopular respondents.

Respondent Mr. Bauer wrote Ms. Craft January 21, 2013, in essence: (Appendix 5)

This letter is to memorialize our telephone conversation of January 15, 2013. In thatconversation, I requested a copy of Mr. Wilhelm's October 9, 2012 letter to Mr. Gillespie.Additionally, I requested an additional 20 days to respond to the Complaint.

Mr. Bauers response was due January 22, 2013; a 20-day extension ended February 11, 2013.

Gillespie is not aware of any timely response by Mr. Bauer to the Florida Bar.

Ultimately Mr. Bauers response is meaningless. Even if the complaint goes to a local

discipline component grievance committee, Bauers friends and cronies will give him a pass.

Gillespies complaint is the second against Mr. Bauer, who charged over $31,000 in legal

fees for litigating Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., et al., 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough

County, Florida. Mr. Bauers representation was Not Competent (Rule 4-1.1) and Not Diligent

(Rule 4-1.3). After the representation Mr. Bauer and Mr. Rodems collaborated to undermine

Gillespies Bar complaint against Bauer. Mr. Bauer and Mr. Rodems then collaborated to

undermine Gillespies civil litigation against Bauer, and force a settlement beneficial to Bauer.

This collaboration leaves no consumer remedy for fee disputes. Bar Counsel Shanell M.

Schuyler informed Gillespie September 15, 2010 as follows:

The Supreme Court of Florida addressed the dilemma of instituting disciplinaryproceedings against attorneys in cases where clients are disputing the reasonableness ofthe fees charged in the case of TFB v. Winn, 208 So.2d 809 (Fla. 1968). In Winn, the

Court held that controversies concerning the reasonableness of fees charged to and paidby clients are matters which by the very nature of the controversy should be left to thecivil courts in proper proceedings for determination. "What may be a reasonable fee inone area of the State may be unreasonable in another and this Court can take judicialknowledge of the fact that the opinions of reputable lawyers concerning what constitutesa reasonable fee in any given situation often are as far apart as the poles." TFB v. Winn.


14/64

4

Given the above, there is no lawful remedy to resolve Mr. Bauers professional misconduct or

fee dispute. As this Petition shows, civil litigation against an attorney over fees is futile.

Intervening Florida Bar Matters for this Supplemental Brief

Misconduct of Nominal Respondent Ryan Christopher Rodems - No Remedy AvailableMisconduct of Eugene P. Castagliuolo - No Remedy Available

Bar Counsel Leonard did not respond to Gillespies request for records in his two

complaints in the Tampa Brach Office against Mr. Rodems and Mr. Castagliuolo. (Appendix 6).

However it appears the complaints will be dismissed per Mr. Castagliuolos Feb-06-13 email.

ACAP, the Attorney Consumer Assistance Program, has not responded to Gillespies

complaint against Mr. Rodems, submitted to this Court January 22, 2013 under Rule 8.

Intervening Florida Bar Matters for this Supplemental BriefMisconduct of Catherine Barbara Chapman - No Remedy Available

ACAP has not responded to Gillespies complaint against Catherine Barbara Chapman

for failing to report Mr. Rodems misconduct of representing the State of Florida in federal

litigation, a violation that benefited her client Mr. Bauer. The complaint of January 18, 2013

appears at Appendix 7, and alleges violation of Rule 4-8.3, Reporting Professional Misconduct.

Duty and Authority to Discipline Attorneys: The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar

Rule 33.1 Supreme Court of Florida; Disciplinary AgenciesThe exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida over the discipline of personsadmitted to the practice of law shall be administered in the following manner subject tothe supervision and review of the court. The following entities are hereby designated asagencies of the Supreme Court of Florida for this purpose and with the followingresponsibilities, jurisdiction, and powers. The board of governors, grievance committees,and referees shall have such jurisdiction and powers as are necessary to conduct the

proper and speedy disposition of any investigation or cause, including the power tocompel the attendance of witnesses, to take or cause to be taken the deposition ofwitnesses, and to order the production of books, records, or other documentary evidence.Each member of such agencies has power to administer oaths and affirmations towitnesses in any matter within the jurisdiction of the agency.

The Table of Authorities Cited sets out Rules Regulating The Florida Bar pertaining to

Discipline Duties of the Supreme Court of Florida, the Florida Bar and Board of Governors.


15/64

5

THE LAWYER-JUDGE BIAS IN THE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM

Law Professor Benjamin H. Barton, author ofThe Lawyer-Judge Bias In The American

Legal System, writes that virtually all American judges are former lawyers, a shared background

that results in the lawyer-judge bias. Prof. Barton argues that these lawyer-judges instinctively

favor the legal profession in their decisions and that this bias has far-reaching and deleterious

effects on American law. Prof. Barton discussed his thesis in an interview with Glenn Reynolds,

and said regular people who are not lawyers find it patently obvious that judges favor lawyers.

Lawyers are the only American profession to be truly and completely self-regulated.

State supreme courts govern the regulation of lawyers in every state in the union, often as a

result of state supreme court decisions claiming an "inherent authority" to govern the legal

profession. In contrast, state legislatures control the regulation of every other profession. (p. 16)

The Florida Supreme Court has taken its regulatory authority and delegated it to the Florida Bar.

Unfortunately, the Florida Bar does not protect consumers of legal and court services.

Barton also notes, the ABA and the courts have defended entry regulation as a

protection for the public from incompetent or unethical lawyers1. (p. 147)

This rationale is not particularly persuasive. There are actually two underlying parts tothe "protection from incompetent lawyers" defense. The first part is what economists callinformation asymmetry. In this area, it means that consumers lack sufficient informationto gauge a good lawyer from a bad lawyer or even a dangerous lawyer. The second part isthat the harm a bad lawyer can cause is so severe that we need to protect clients ex antefrom damage, rather than just paying them money ex post after any damages occur.Classic examples of irremediable damages are harms to health or safety, because it isvery hard to recompense victims for severe injuries.

1See, e.g., ABA, ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility(Chicago: ABA, 1983), EC 1-2 ("The publicshould be protected from those who are not qualified to be lawyers by reason ofa deficiency in education or moralstandards or of other relevant factors but who nevertheless seek to practice law."); ABA Commission onProfessionalism,In the Spirit of Public Service: A Blueprint for the Rekindling of Lawyer Professionalism(Chicago:ABA, 1986), 10; In re Schwartz, 862 P.2d 215,218 (Ariz. 1993) (stating that the purpose of attorney discipline isnot to punish the offender, but to protect the public and the justice system); In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544,550 (1968)(noting that disbarment is "designed to protect the public"); In re Agostini, 632 A.2d 80, 81 (Del. 1993) (stating thatsanctions are aimed at protecting the public and fostering confidence in the justice system).


16/64

6

Numquam Dixerunt Legem Nobis Observandam Esse(They Never Said We Had To Obey The Law) p. 63

Former U.S. Attorney and Harvard Law School grad David W. Marston gave his opinion

of lawyer regulation inMalice Aforethought: How Lawyers Use Our Secret Rules to Get Rich,

Get Sex, Get Even...and Get Away with It. Former President Richard M. Nixon, a lawyer himself,

endorsed the book in a paragraph3 on the back of the dust jacket. (A copy of

Malice Aforethoughtwas published 20 years before Prof. Bartons Lawyer-Judge bias

book, and reached the same conclusion: Self-regulation of lawyers and the legal profession does

not work to protect consumers of legal and court services affecting interstate commerce.

Marston on antitrust: Even lawyers who have not kept up with legal developments

understand that "antitrust" is a ticking time bomb, one that could blow up the entire unregulated

legal monopoly. (p. 205). Marston also described what binds the profession:

They all have undergone the same tough initiation, and once admitted to membership, allhave sown the same oath. They live by their own rules and have fiercely resisted effortsby outsiders to penetrate their clan. They have a code of silence that makes the Mafiasomerta seem gossipy. (4, p. 22)

The organization enforces its own discipline, and outsiders can piece together only themost fragmentary picture of the process... (2, p. 23)

It's not the Mafia. Not the Medellin drug cartel, or some shadowy Chinese tong. The

members are all lawyers. And the organization is the American legal profession. (p. 23-24).

Professional Courtesy - No Compliance With Rule 4-8.3 - Reporting Misconduct

Lawyers rarely report other lawyers. (p.167). Critics may call that irresponsible, proof

that self-regulation does not work. We call it professional courtesy. (p. 167).

3 Dave MarstonsMalice Aforethoughtis a fascinating expos of the illegal, corrupt, and unethical practices ofsome members of the legal profession. But what is even more disturbing is that those guilty of such practice toooften receive only a gentile slap on the wrist from bar associates and others with responsibilities to punish thosewho engage in such practices. Some of the abuses he describes are so blatant that if they appeared in a movie,viewers would find it hard to believe that they could have been based on fact. Mr. Marston has written one of thoserare books in which the facts of the abuses he describes are worse than fiction. Former President Richard M. Nixon


17/64

7

THE SECRET LIFE OF JUDGES, 75 Fordham L. Rev. 2855 (2007)The Honorable Dennis J acobs, Chief J udge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

When I refer to the secret life of judges, I am speaking of an inner turn of mind thatfavors, empowers, and enables our profession and our brothers and sisters at the bar. It issecret, because it is unobserved and therefore unrestrained - by the judges themselves or

by the legal community that so closely surrounds and nurtures us. It is an ambient bias.

In 2006 Judge Jacobs delivered a speech entitled "The Secret Life Of Judges" at Fordham

University School of Law. The published manuscript won a Green Bag Award for exemplary

legal writing in the short article category. Prof. Barton commented on page 1 of his book:

Judge Jacobs's remarks are exceptionally frank for any sitting judge, and are particularlystartling from the chief judge of the Second Circuit. It is quite unusual for any judge orlawyer to discuss a bias in favor of the legal profession; it is a criticism that cuts too close

to the bone. If and when cases crop up that favor the legal profession, lawyers, judges,and law professors are quick to explain them away as correct decisions that reflect theunique position of lawyers in the American justice system or as anomalies. This mayexplain why relatively little has been written about what I call the lawyer-judge bias.

Judge Jacobs, in his own words, beginning at 4, page 2861:

I sometimes think that the problem at bottom is really a lack of respect bylawyers for other people. Judges live chiefly in a circle of lawyers. Ourcolleagues are lawyers; happily, our friends are lawyers (and I am hoping tokeep some after this lecture); the only outside income a federal judge canearn (aside from royalties) is from teaching in law schools (with the idea, Isuppose, that they furnish a nonpartisan environment); and the only politicaland trade organizations we can join are bar associations.

But outside that circle there are people who are just as fully absorbed byother pursuits that deserve consideration and respect. Judges need aheightened respect for how nonlawyers solve problems, reachcompromises, broker risks, and govern themselves and their institutions.There are lawyers on the one hand; and just about everybody else is thecompetition in the framing of values and standards of behavior.

The Secret Life of Judgesappears at Appendix 1. Judge Jacobs concluded:

As a matter of self-awareness and conscience, judges should accept that the legal mindis not the best policy instrument, and that lawyer-driven processes and lawyer-centeredsolutions can be unwise, insufficient, and unjust, even if our friends and colleagues in thelegal profession lead us that way. For the judiciary, this would mean a reduced role, butnot a diminished one if the judiciary is elevated by considerations of honor, self-restraint,and respect for other influences.


18/64

8

LOCAL DISCIPL INE COMPONENTS

A Fatal Defect In The Florida Bars Lawyer Discipline System

Local components, such as local bar investigative committees, foster cronyismas well as prejudice against unpopular respondents. - ABA McKay Report

The American Bar Association recommended eliminating local discipline components in

its McKay Report, see the section titled: IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF DECISIONS

Implementing Existing ABA Policy: All jurisdictions should restructure their disciplinarysystems to eliminate local components. All stages of disciplinary proceedings, includingintake and screening of complaints, investigation, prosecution, hearing, and appealshould be conducted on a statewide or regional basis under the jurisdiction of a statewidedisciplinary official or body, consistent with MRLDE 1, 3E(1), and 4B(1),(2),(3).

Comments: Despite the fact that eliminating local disciplinary enforcement was a major

recommendation of the Clark Report, at least twelve jurisdictions still have significantlocal components in their disciplinary systems. Local components, such as local barinvestigative committees, foster cronyism as well as prejudice against unpopularrespondents. Local components result in a lack of uniformity in procedures and in theapplication of the rules of professional conduct. Local components promote delay in thehandling of disciplinary cases.

While the distinction between a regional and a local body is sometimes unclear, regionalbodies: (1) have uniform rules of procedure, (2) lack discretion to vary their procedures,(3) are directly supervised by a statewide authority, (4) can easily transfer cases amongthemselves; and (5) have a large enough jurisdiction so that respondents are not routinely

known personally by adjudicators.

Prior to any litigation, Gillespie made an initial written complaint June 7, 2004 to the

Florida Bars Tampa Branch Office against William J. Cook for theft of $7,1433 from Gillespies

share of the total recovery in a prior contingent fee lawsuit against AMSCOT4. Mr. Cook

concocted a $50,000 closing statement fraud for claim against AMSCOT for court-awarded fees

and costs. [Rule 4-1.5(f)(5)]. In fact no fees were awarded - the case settle for business reasons.

Susan V. Bloemendaal was then, and is today, Chief Branch Discipline Counsel for the

Tampa Branch Office. Discipline authority of the Florida Bar is in the table of authorities cited.

3 See Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, May 5, 2010, 05-CA-7205, with motion to amend.4 Clement, Blomefield, and Gillespie v. AMSCOT Corporation, No. 01-14761-AA, U.S. 11th Circuit COA


19/64

9

Gwynne A. Young was one of three Florida Bar Board of Governors for the Thirteenth

Judicial Circuit who reviewed this discipline matter in 2007. (Appendix 8). Discipline

responsibility and authority for the Board of Governors is found in the table of authorities cited.

Gwynne A. Young is currently the President of The Florida Bar.

The Florida Bars discipline system relies on local discipline components. The five Chief

Branch Discipline Counsels of each Florida Bar Branch Office are local discipline components:

Tallahassee Chief Branch Discipline Counsel: James N. Watson, Jr.Tampa Chief Branch Discipline Counsel: Susan V. BloemendaalOrlando Chief Branch Discipline Counsel: Jan K. WichrowskiFt. Lauderdale Chief Branch Discipline Counsel: Adria E. QuintelaMiami Chief Branch Discipline Counsel: Arlene K. Sankel

Each Branch Office has a handful of Assistant Staff or Bar Counsels, and grievance

committees, that consider complaints against lawyers. The Florida Bars organizational chart

shows 79 grievance committees comprised of over 700 volunteers. (Appendix 9).

On June 21, 2004 the Florida Bar assigned Gillespies complaint to Assistant Staff

Counsel William L. Thompson who opened TFB No. 2004-11,734(13C). Mr. Thompson

diligently investigated Gillespies complaint, but after six months was removed from the inquiry.

Gillespie believes Mr. Thompson found probable cause of misconduct, but he was unable

to complete his inquiry. Mr. Thompsons personnel file shows he terminated January 7, 2005.

Ms. Bloemendaal subsequently wrote an unsatisfactory exit review for Mr. Thompson that was

contrary to his overall record and merit pay increase of September 1, 20045.

Susan Bloemendaal personally assumed investigation of Gillespies complaint, instead of

assigning it to another Assistant Staff Counsel as usually happens. Ms. Bloemendaal soon closed

the file, and notified Gillespie of the case closure by letter February 9, 2005, stating in part:

5 Mr. Thompson married a colleague in the office, Assistant Staff Counsel Jodi Anderson, November 4, 2004.


20/64

10

Mr. Gillespie, the bar has carefully reviewed all the information and documents providedby you and Mr. Cook. Based upon this review, it is the bar's position that the objectiveevidence is insufficient to support a finding of misconduct behalf of Mr. Cook.

However on January 13, 2006 Gillespie prevailed by Order6 of Hillsborough Judge Nielsen that

rejected Mr. Cooks concocted claim to $50,000 for court-awarded fees and costs. This was

the basis for Mr. Bauers appearance for Gillespie and $31,000 in legal fees. Mr. Bauer was a

referral from the Bar Lawyer Referral Service (LRS), who repudiated the Bars decision. Now

the Bar is protecting Mr. Bauer. The Bar has a conflict investigating Bauer, its LRS referral.

A record of all the Tampa Branch discipline proceedings is available. A list of all related

Bar complaints appears at Appendix 10. A list of related cases appears at Appendix 11.

The ABA Clark Report from 1970 also criticized local discipline components:

Problem 2, Local and fragmented nature of disciplinary structure: The Clark Committeefound in many states disciplinary functions conducted by local jurisdictions so small thatall the lawyers knew each other personally. This caused three problems: (1) the difficultyof passing objective judgment on social and professional acquaintances; (2) theappearance of impropriety in attempting to do so; and (3) a lack of uniformity indiscipline imposed. The Committee recommended statewide centralization of thedisciplinary system under the ultimate control of the state's highest court, with branchoffices in major population centers of more populous jurisdictions.

Current Status: Most jurisdictions have revised their discipline systems since the ClarkReport and have eliminated local committees. However, a significant minority stillperform some discipline functions at the local level. According to the Commission'ssurvey of disciplinary counsel, ten jurisdictions still have local committees that receivecomplaints from the public. Eleven states use local investigators or committees toinvestigate complaints. Fifteen states use local bodies to make the decision whether tofile formal charges. Evaluations of several of these jurisdictions by the ABA StandingCommittee on Professional Discipline reveal that local components of disciplinarysystems continue to create the same problems identified by the Clark Report. In all ofthese evaluations, the Standing Committee has recommended eliminating local

components and establishing statewide bodies.

Forty-three (43) years after the Clark Report, The Florida Bar, unfortunately, still relies on local

discipline components in its Branch Office lawyer discipline system, other than during intake.

6Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, et al., case no. 05-CA-7205, Hillsborough Co., FL, Order OnDefendants Motion To Dismiss And Strike, Jan. 13, 2006. (Hon. Richard Nielsen).


21/64

11

THE FLORIDA BAR HAWKINS REPORT - MAY 2012

The Hawkins Report shows serious and ongoing problems with the Florida Bars

discipline system. This is not surprising given the Bars reliance on local discipline components.

The Hawkins Report opened with a reference to Ponzi schemer Scott Rothstein, and

foreclosure mills, like David J. Stern, both cited in Reasons For Granting the Petition. (p. 37).

In June 2011, incoming Florida Bar President Scott G. Hawkins appointed the HawkinsCommission on Review of the Discipline System. His vision for this Commission wasstated in his 2011 video message to Bar members: The grievance commission will studythe Bars regulation of lawyer conduct, with an eye on the rapidly growing number ofBar members and in view of some recent high-profile matters involving broad-scalemisconduct. The goal is to make sure the Bar is fully responsive and vigilant inregulating our nearly 100,000 members. The Bar has faced some large-scale problems in

recent years, such as mass frauds and improper filings in foreclosures, and we must beprepared to handle such large problems in the future.

The Hawkins Report states, The Commissions focus was not an omnibus examination

of the disciplinary system, as was conducted by the Coxe Commission from 2003-2005. Instead,

the group was given specific tasks to study, and was divided into three subcommittees.

Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Alternatives to Discipline, and issuesrelated to Aging Lawyers.

Bars Attorney Consumer Assistance Program, as well as frivolous or retaliatorycomplaints and complaints against lawyers made by judges.

Complex discipline or widespread impact cases, as well as communication with thepublic and bar members about the grievance program.

The Hawkins Report did not consider local discipline components, or any meaningful

consumer protection issues. Some of the survey results are shown below. Tellingly a number of

critical responses are from Florida judges and federal judges, and honest lawyers.

The Hawkins Report appears in a separate volume appendix, and is also found on the

Florida Bars website at the link for Publications, Bar Reports.

All Bar Survey responses appear at Appendix A attached to this Supplemental Brief.


22/64

12

Responses to open ended questions, beginning p. 24/97

10. Were you satisfied with the disposition of the referred case(s)? If dissatisfied, pleaseexplain: (OPEN-ENDED QUESTION RESPONSES)

Action Taken Was Not Adequate/Strong Enough (21 Responses), selected responses.

Disappointed how the grievance committee process is used. Although there may beprobable cause, the process will forgive a certain violation and deem it as "noprobable cause." In one case, the attorney representing the referred violatorapproached me later to apologize for the situation, and that the violator "owed himone" for using his influence with the committee to get a finding of no probable cause.The Bar attorney likewise apologized.

I conducted an evidentiary hearing over three or four days and was regrettablyrequired to find a lawyer had suborned perjury. After finding the lawyer guilty ofcontempt, I referred this matter to the Bar. I used to Chair a Grievance Committeewhen I practiced law, so I am very familiar with the process. The grievancecommittee assigned a lawyer/member to investigate. This lawyer failed to investigateproperly. She never spoke to me, she never spoke to any of the other lawyers in thecase, and she never reviewed any transcripts. She merely called the lawyer whom Ifound in contempt; he denied suborning perjury and that's all she did. Sherecommended a finding of no probable cause. Her investigation was a joke andembarrassed the legal system and The Florida Bar.

I see a lot of unprofessional behavior in the courtroom and only refer the mostegregious of matters. Yet, you take these two cases and find NPC without evencontacting me. I am very dissatisfied and feel like I received a blow to the face.

12. The Commission is very interested in any comments that you may have about TheFlorida Bars discipline system and your experience(s) with it. Please utilize thespace below to provide us with your comments.(OPEN-ENDED QUESTION RESPONSES)

Lack of Confidence in the Process/System (26 Responses), selected responses.

I am new to the bench but other judges have told me that they have had poorexperiences with the Bar's discipline system and I will avoid it until things change.

I do not know of a single judge who has confidence in the disciplinary process.

I have always found Bar staff lawyers to be courteous. But I have a HUGE problemwith the way matters are investigated by grievance committees. The investigatingattorney was sloppy and failed to protect the public. And when I tried to bring this toher attention, after the fact, so we wouldn't make mistakes in the future, she wasincredibly rude. I do not have a problem with a finding of NPC. I have a problemwith an incompetent investigation.


23/64

13

I sat on the Board of Governors for several years. While on the Board I served on theDisciplinary Review Committee. I had heard rumors that the judges were not usingthe referral process because of a lack of confidence in the system. I have seen some ofthat first hand. As a judge, I am the present director of our statewide judicialmentoring program. One of my responsibilities is to work with new judges as they

learn how to become effective judges. An area we discuss is Bar referrals.Unfortunately, the overall experience appears not to have been good. Several judgeswith whom I have spoken with refuse to, to use their terminology, "waste" [their]time on a referral when nothing will become of it."

The Grievance Committee process needs revision. It appears to be a conflict thatpeers who work with these members then evaluate their conduct. I continue to havelittle faith and confidence in this process.

The judges do not take this system seriously because we keep referring the samelawyers to you and then we see them right back in our courtroom performing thesame unprofessional behavior over and over. I'm done referring cases. It's a bit of amockery right now and lawyers know it.

It is very rare when I need the Bar but, when I do, I want them right away and I wantto move the front of the line. By that, I mean referrals from judges should be treatedwith priority as the Bar is all a judge has left. The appellate courts have taken awayall contempt enforcement power and the word has spread that judges can do nothingto you so you may as well act the way you want to. Additionally, my state attorneywill not follow the rules which allow a judge to refer the matter to the state attorneyand then to the Chief Judge for proceedings in Circuit Court. So I can refer them but

it goes nowhere when the state attorney ignores the referral. Maybe I am oldfashioned, but there was a day when a judge did not ask for help -- the judge justhandled the matter and it was quick and effective.

There is a general perception that disciplinary referrals are often an exercise in futilityand, for that reason, I am concerned that judges may not make future referrals incases warranting disciplinary action.

We as judges have so little faith in Florida Bar counsel and the disciplinary process.

While it is understandable that trust fund violations and thefts from clients deserve

top priority, the instances of dishonesty with the tribunal and false attacks ontribunals are increasing in frequency due to a perception that the Bar does not havethe resources to investigate or prosecute cases of that nature.


24/64

14

CONCLUSIONTHE FLORIDA BAR: THE TAIL THAT WAGS THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY

I have practiced law for over 30 years and served over 20 as a judge. But for a fewexceptions, the lawyers in this area are ethical and qualified. However, the same

disreputable lawyers continue their practices and, despite past Bar investigations anddisciplinary actions, these disreputable lawyers are still here practicing law. I have haddiscussions with several other judges and our conclusion is always the same. There is noneed to refer the incompetent, unethical lawyer to the Bar since the disciplinary actionsare too little and too late. Good luck.

- Respondent to the Florida Bar survey, Hawkins Report, page 24/112______________________________

The Petition alleges our Founders did not consider the corrupting power and influence of

a rival called the Florida Bar. The Petition showed, unfortunately, that a Florida lawyer in

private practice can usurp what is called in Article III the judicial power of the United States.

This Supplemental Brief shows a breakdown in the Florida Bars discipline system,

through the use of local discipline components which the ABA has condemned.

Critical comments in the Hawkins Report made by judges and lawyers, like the above

quote, show the futility of lawyer discipline under the current system. It is worse for lay people.

U.S. District Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges, having elected Senior Status, raises another

issue: Are Senior Judges Unconstitutional? That issue was addressed by David Stras and Ryan

Scott, in 92Cornell Law Review453 (2007) which appears in a separate volume appendix.

The authors examine two general constitutional questions: first, whether the requirement

that senior judges be designated and assigned by another federal judge before performing any

judicial work violates the tenure protection of Article III; and second, whether allowing judges to

elect senior status, without a second, intervening appointment, violates the Appointments Clause.

A response to Gillespie April 25, 2012 by Middle District Chief Judge Anne C. Conway

is telling on the issue of the independence Senior Judge Hodges: (Appendix 12).


25/64

I am in receipt ofyour correspondence dated March 22, 2012. Since this case is notassigned to me there is nothing I can do to assist you.28 U.S.C. 137 - Division of business among district judges, shows a chiefjudge makes theassignments, calling into question the reasoning in Chief Judge Conway's letter:

The chiefjudge of the district court shall be responsible for the observance of such rulesand orders, and shall divide the business and assign the cases so far as such rules andorders do not otherwise prescribe.

Chie f Judge Conway had power to reassign Judge Hodges from the Ocala Division where he isthe sole Article III Federal Judge, Senior Status or not, which might be disruptive. Prior to filinghis lawsuit September 28,2010, Gillespie contacted August 30,2010 James Leanheart, the OcalaDivision Court Operations Supervisor, about the case. (Appendix 13). Mr. Leanheart later toldGillespie that he discussed Gillespie's plan to sue the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit with someone,but would not say whom. A reasonable person could conclude he told Chief Judge Conway.

Chie f Judge Conway is a member in good standing of the Florida Bar, ID No. 198315.Judge Hodges is a member in good standing of the Florida Bar, ID No. 36398. Can a federaljudge constitutionally be a member of the Florida Bar while serving on the federal judiciary?

The Florida Bar has failed to adequately discipline persons adnlitted to the practice oflaw in Gillespie's case, and in the opinion of the respondents to the Bar survey, many ofwhomare lawyers and judges. Ordinary people, consumers of legal and court services, have noprotection from bad or dangerous lawyers, and no recourse for injury or damage sustained.

Unfortunately, the corrupting power and influence of the Florida Bar has overtaken thefederal judiciary within Florida.

Respectfully Submitted, February 13, 2 0 1 ~ ~

15


26/64

Results of the Survey onThe Florida Bars

Disciplinary System(Circuit, County, and District Courts of Appeal J udges)

J anuary 2012

24 (8

APPENDI


27/64

BACKGROUND

Upon the request of Subcommittee Two of the Commission on the Review of The

Florida Bars Disciplinary System, a survey was developed to determine judges levelsof satisfaction regarding various elements of communication within the Bars

disciplinary process.

Chair Edward Cheffy, vice-chair Jake Schickel, and subcommittee members Courtney

Grimm, Tom Bateman, Julie Simone Sneed, Michael Higer, Alvin Alsobrook, Linda

Burdick, Stacy Scott, Michael Lax, and Jewel White created the questionnaire while

working with Florida Bar staff members John Berry, Mike Garcia, Ken Marvin, andArne Vanstrum.

The primary purpose for the survey was to ascertain the judiciarys perceptions and

experiences in order to determine whether the Bars disciplinary process is fulfilling its

expectations in regards to efficient and effective communication with judges who refer

cases to the Bar involving lawyer conduct. The survey will assist the Commission in its

overall effort to study the Bars regulation of lawyer conduct.

It is important to note that the survey was intentionally limited to matters that may have

occurred in the past five years because a change in The Bars policy for handling

complaints received from judicial officers was recommended after a previous

Commissions study concluded in 2006. The new policy became effective July 1, 2007.

1

24 (8


28/64

SAMPLE

The Survey on The Florida Bars Disciplinary System was conducted in December

2011. A link to an electronic survey was sent through an email by the Office of the State

Courts Administrator to each Chief Judge in Florida (with a copy to the trial court

administrators and DCA marshals) requesting that the Chief Judges distribute the email

and survey link information to all judges in their respective courts.

A total of 982 judges (599 Circuit Court, 322 County Court, and 61 DCA) would be

invited to participate. By the cutoff date of December 23, 2011, 297 completed

questionnaires had been received for a response rate of 30%.

The Florida Bar's Department of Research, Planning & Evaluation coded and

categorized all qualitative questions in the survey, verified data for accuracy and

completeness, and applied the appropriate statistical tests to the data.

In reporting the results, all percentages were rounded to the nearest whole percent

(example: 74.5% equals 75%). For this reason, totals will vary from 99% to 101%.

Several measures of central tendency are mentioned throughout this report:

Mean: The average for all values given for the total sample of each question.

The mean is calculated by adding the values of all responses, then dividing by the

number of responses. Example: Five responses (10, 1, 2, 2, 20) are reported. The

average, or mean is calculated by adding 10 +1+2 +2 +20 =35 and then by dividingby the number of responses (5). Thus the average is 35 divided by 5 =7.

Median: The median is the middle value in a series, or distribution of values which is

initially rank-ordered (from low to high, or vice-versa). By definition, half the numbers

are greater, and half the numbers are less than the median. Example: Five responses (10,

2

24 (8


29/64

1, 2, 2, 20) are reported. The median is the middle number of the order of distribution

(1, 2, 2, 10, 20), or, 2. By comparison, the average of this same distribution, as shown

above, is 7.

Range: the highest and lowest values provided by the total sample for a particular

question.

In reporting the results, all percentages were rounded to the nearest whole percent

(example: 74.5% equals 75%). For this reason, totals will vary from 99% to 101%.

3

24 (8


30/64

Results of the Survey on The Florida Bars Disciplinary System(Circuit, County and District Court of Appeals Judges)

1. Have you referred any cases involving lawyer conduct to The Florida Bar in the last

five years?

Category (n=297) Percent

Yes 31No 69

* Nearly one-third (31%) of all respondents have referred a case involving lawyer conductto The Florida Bar in the last five years.

2. Please indicate the total number of cases that you have referred over the past fiveyears.


1 482 323 164 or 5 16 to 10 1More than 10 1

Mean = 2Median = 2Range = 1 to 20

3. After you referred the matter(s) to The Florida Bar, did you ever receive a phonecall from an attorney handling the case for the Bar?


Yes, in all instances 39Yes, in some instances 26No 35

* Just under two-fifths (39%) of respondents who have filed a case report that, in allinstances, they received a phone call from a Florida Bar attorney who was handling thecase. Slightly over one-quarter (26%) report that they received a call in some instances,while just over one-third (35%) report that they never received a phone call.

4

24 (8


31/64

4. If the case(s) did advance beyond the Intake level (to a Grievance Committee orfurther), were you asked by The Florida Bars attorney whether you wanted toreceive updates or copies of the documents?



* When considering only those cases that went beyond the Intake level, over two-fifths(44%) of respondents report that, in all instances, The Florida Bars attorney askedwhether they wanted to receive updates or copies of documents. Nearly one-quarter(24%) report that The Florida Bar attorney asked in some instances, while about one-third(32%) report that the Bars attorney did not ask.

5. If you asked for updates or copies of documents, did you receive them?



* Approximately two-thirds (68%) of respondents who asked for updates or copies ofdocuments report that they received them in all instances. Almost one-third (32%) reportthat they either received copies or documents in some instances, or not at all.

6. If the Supreme Court issued an Order or Opinion on the case(s) you referred, wereyou given a copy of the Order or Opinion?



* When considering only those respondents who report that the Supreme Court issuedan order or opinion on the case they referred, over two-thirds (69%) report that theywere not provided with a copy of that order or opinion.

5

24 (9


32/64

7. Please indicate your overall perception of howcourteous and professionalFlorida

Bar attorneys were during any communications.


Very courteous/professional 45Somewhat courteous/professional 16Neutral 6Somewhat discourteous/unprofessional 1Very discourteous/unprofessional 0

I did not communicate with a Florida Bar attorney 32

* Just over three-fifths (61%) of respondents report that Florida Bar attorneys werecourteous and professional, compared to only 1% who report that they were discourteous

and unprofessional. Nearly one-third (32%) of all respondents report that they nevercommunicated with a Florida Bar attorney.

7a. Please indicate your overall perception of howcourteous and professionalFloridaBar attorneys were during any communications. (INCLUDES ONLY THOSERESPONDENTS WHO REPORT THAT THEY COMMUNICATED WITH AFLORIDA BAR ATTORNEY)


Very courteous/professional 67Somewhat courteous/professional 23Neutral 8Somewhat discourteous/unprofessional 2Very discourteous/unprofessional 0

* When considering only those respondents who report that they communicated with aFlorida Bar attorney, 90% indicate that the Bars attorney was courteous or professional,compared to only 2% who indicate that the Bars attorney was discourteous orunprofessional.

6

24 (9


33/64

8. Please indicate your overall level of satisfaction with the amount of communications

that you received from The Florida Bar.


Very satisfied 31Somewhat satisfied 11Neutral 11Somewhat dissatisfied 21Very dissatisfied 26

* A slightly higher percentage of respondents report that they are dissatisfied (47%) withthe amount of communication received from The Florida Bar, as compared to those whoreport that they are satisfied (42%) with the amount of communication received.

8a. Please indicate your overall level of satisfaction with the amount of communicationsthat you received from The Florida Bar BY THE LOCATION WHERE AJ UDGE SERVES

Serves in Serves in Serves in Serves in Serves in1st DCA 2nd DCA 3rdDCA 4th DCA 5th DCA

Category Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent(n=10) (n=16) (n=17) (n=21) (n=19)

Satisfied 60 32 6 43 68

Neutral 0 6 6 19 11Dissatisfied 40 62 88 38 21

* Judges who serve within the Fifth District Court of Appeal (Judicial Circuits 5, 7, 9 and18) have a higher level of satisfaction with the amount of communications receivedfrom The Florida Bar, while judges who serve within the Third District Court of Appeal(Judicial Circuits 11 and 16) have a higher level of dissatisfaction with the amount ofcommunications received from The Florida Bar.

7

24 (9


34/64

8b. If dissatisfied with the amount of communications that you received from TheFlorida Bar, please explain:

A total of 27 respondents provided reasons as to why they are dissatisfied with theamount of communications they received from The Florida Bar. Each response was

reviewed and categorized. The table below lists the three categories. A complete listingof all responses for this question can be found on Pages 13-14 located in AppendixA.

Number ofCategory Responses

Very little or no communication received 23Counsels handling of the case 3Referral recently made/case still pending 1

9. Please indicate your overall level of satisfaction with the quality of communicationsthat you received from The Florida Bar.


Very satisfied 32Somewhat satisfied 8Neutral 11Somewhat dissatisfied 24Very dissatisfied 26

* Half (50%) of respondents report they are dissatisfied with the quality of communicationsreceived from The Florida Bar, compared to two-fifths (40%) of respondents who reportthey are satisfied.

9a. Please indicate your overall level of satisfaction with the quality of communicationsthat you received from The Florida Bar BY THE LOCATION WHERE AJ UDGE SERVES


Category Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent

(n=10) (n=16) (n=17) (n=20) (n=19)

Satisfied 50 31 6 40 68Neutral 10 13 6 15 11Dissatisfied 40 56 88 45 21

* Judges who serve within the Fifth District Court of Appeal (Judicial Circuits 5, 7, 9 and18) have a higher level of satisfaction with the quality of communications received

8

24 (9


35/64

from The Florida Bar, while judges who serve within the Third District Court of Appeal(Judicial Circuits 11 and 16) have a higher level of dissatisfaction with the quality ofcommunications received from The Florida Bar.

9b. If dissatisfied with the quality of communications that you received from TheFlorida Bar, please explain:

A total of 26 respondents provided reasons as to why they were dissatisfied with thequality of communications they received from The Florida Bar. Each response wasreviewed and categorized. The table below lists the three categories. A complete listingof all responses to this question can be found on Pages 15-16 located in Appendix A.


Very little or no communication received 22

Counsels handling of the case 3Referral recently made/case still pending 1

10. Were you satisfied with the disposition of the referred case(s)?


Yes, in all cases 26Yes, in some cases 16No 58

* Just over one-quarter (26%) of respondents report they are satisfied, in all instances, withthe disposition of their referred cases, compared to nearly three-fifths (58%) ofrespondents who report that they are not satisfied.

10a. Were you satisfied with the disposition of the referred case(s) BY THELOCATION WHERE A J UDGE SERVES


Category Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent(n=10) (n=15) (n=17) (n=20) (n=18)

Yes, in all cases 60 13 6 15 39Yes, in some cases 0 20 12 20 22No 40 67 82 65 39

9

24 (9


36/64

* Judges who serve within the First District Court of Appeal (Judicial Circuits, 1, 2, 3, 4, 8and 14) have a higher level of satisfaction with the disposition of referred cases, whilejudges who serve within the Third District Court of Appeal (Judicial Circuits 11 and 16)have a higher level of dissatisfaction with the disposition of referred cases.

10a. If dissatisfied with the disposition of the referred case(s), please explain:

A total of 40 respondents provided reasons as to why they were dissatisfied with thedisposition of the referred case(s). Each response was reviewed and categorized. Thetable below lists the five categories. A complete listing of all responses to this questioncan be found on Pages 17-19 located in Appendix A.


Action taken was not adequate/strong enough 21

Lack of communication 13Referral recently made; case still pending 3Process takes too long 2Miscellaneous 1

11. How interested would you be in having The Florida Bars personnel discuss Barprocedures and the discipline system at judicial education programs?


Very interested 30Somewhat interested 38Neutral 11Somewhat uninterested 8Very uninterested 13

* Over two-thirds (68%) of respondents would be interested in havingThe Florida Barspersonnel discuss Bar procedures and the discipline system at judicial educationprograms, compared to just over one-fifth (21%) who report they would not be interested.

10

24 (9


37/64

12. The Commission is very interested in any comments that you may have about TheFlorida Bars discipline system and your experience(s) with it. Please utilize thespace below to provide us with your comments.

A total of 87 respondents provided comments about The Florida Bars discipline systemand their experience with it. Each response was reviewed and categorized. The tablebelow lists the eight categories. A complete listing of all responses to this question canbe found on Pages 20-28 located in Appendix A.


Lack of confidence in the process/system 26Action taken is not adequate 17Slow process 10

Education about disciplinary process/procedures 9Positive commentary about the process 9Lack of communication 6Never referred a case 2

Miscellaneous 8

13. Within which of the following District Courts of Appeal do you serve as a judge?


First DCA (Judicial Circuits, 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 14) 19Second DCA (Judicial Circuits 6, 10, 12, 13 and 20) 24Third DCA (Judicial Circuits 11 and 16) 13Fourth DCA (Judicial Circuits 15, 17 and 19) 21Fifth DCA (Judicial Circuits 5, 7, 9 and 18) 23

11

24 (9


38/64

APPENDIX A:

RESPONSES TO OPEN-

ENDED QUESTIONS

12

24 (9


39/64

8. Please indicate your overall level of satisfaction with the amount of communicationsthat you received from The Florida Bar. If dissatisfied, please explain:(OPEN-ENDED QUESTION RESPONSES)

Very Little orNo Communication Received (23 Responses)

* Each complaint was accompanied by written proof in the form of affidavits signed by theoffending lawyer showing the inherently perjurious statement by the lawyer. In oneinstance I received a single phone call requesting that I withdraw the complaint becausethe lawyer "made a mistake in his sworn statement." I declined and I never heard anotherword. In the second instance, I never heard anything from anyone. Both were simplyburied or ignored by the Bar. I don't waste time with the Bar anymore.

* Extremely poor communication never heard anything about it.

* Had no contact or updates.

* I don't want to say I was dissatisfied because I do not know if the Bar attorney knewwhich judges at our court referred particular attorneys. If the attorney was aware of whomade the referrals I would have expected some form of communication from themregarding the matter.

* I never heard a word about the so-called investigation.

* It would have been nice to hear about how the case was disposed. I had to follow up onmy own and I still don't know the extent of the investigation.

* Never got any response from The Florida Bar after filing a grievance. The designatedreviewer of the grievance committee was in contact and was very professional, however,there was no contact made from Bar counsel directly.

* Never heard back.

* Never heard how case was disposed and why.

* Never learned how the case was investigated or disposed.

* No communications received.

* No contact was made.

* No information was conveyed.

* No one bothered to return my phone calls.

13

24 (9


40/64

* No one called to request additional documentation or information. NPC was found inboth cases without any communication to me. It is a slap in the face.

* No returned calls.

* There was no discussion.

* There was very little communication. My Judicial Assistant had to call in one instanceand, in a UPL, we never heard anything.

* Too few. I was never updated.

* Very little communication and my Judicial Assistant had to follow up numerous times.

* Was never contacted or told the outcome.

* We did not speak.

* Would have been nice to hear back from someone.

Counsels Handling of the Case (3 Responses)

* Counsel didn't take the case seriously. It seemed like she just went through the motionsand quickly found no cause.

* One case was handled and the lawyer was disciplined. I was kept informed the entiretime. The second case was against a lawyer with several prior (and similar) complaints inwhich he was disciplined. I have no idea what happened with my complaint and I don'tthink any action was ever taken against the lawyer. I believe the Florida Bar lawyer didnot pursue my complaint purely due to race.

* The lawyer was a chronic offender and no one in The Florida Bars office tried todetermine the chronicity and severity of the behavior. In fact, there was mitigation as aresult of his "contributions" to the court. The resulting discipline was an injustice.

Referral Recently Made/Case Still Pending (1 Response)

* I only recently submitted a copy of the order as a recommendation/referral so there hasnot yet been any communication, which is understandable.

14

24 (9


41/64

9. Please indicate your overall level of satisfaction with the quality of communicationsthat you received from The Florida Bar. If dissatisfied, please explain:(OPEN-ENDED QUESTION RESPONSES)

Very Little orNo Communication Received (22 Responses)

* Each complaint was accompanied by written proof in the form of affidavits signed by theoffending lawyer showing the inherently perjurious statement by the lawyer. In oneinstance I received a single phone call requesting that I withdraw the complaint becausethe lawyer "made a mistake in his sworn statement." I declined and I never heard anotherword. In the second instance I never heard anything from anyone. Both were simplyburied or ignored by the Bar. I don't waste time with the Bar anymore.

* I did not receive communication.

* I never heard back.

* In two cases, I received no information until the final disposition; which, itself, was verydisappointing.

* Lack of communications.

* Needed more communications.

* Never heard back.

* No communications received.

* No communications were received.

* No contact was made.

* No information exchanged.

* No one called to request additional documentation or information. NPC was foundin both cases without any communication to me. It is a slap in the face.

* No one seemed to care enough to return calls.

* One would think the judiciary would be advised as to what was happening. We are not.

* Poor communication.

* The designated reviewer of the grievance committee was in contact and was veryprofessional. There was no contact from Bar counsel directly.

15

24 (10


42/64

* There wasn't any communication at all.

* There wasn't any communication.

* There were no communications at all.

* There were no communications.

* Voice mails were exchanged and nothing else.

* With no returned call, there was no communication to rate.

Counsels Handling of the Case (3 Responses)

* Counsel was disinterested.

* One Florida Bar attorney was borderline rude and showed little respect to my JudicialAssistant.

* The counsel I spoke with appeared to have his mind made up that unprofessionalismbehavior is not worth pursuing for the Bar.

Referral Recently Made; Case Still Pending (1 Response)

* Again, referral was just recently made.

16

24 (10


43/64

10. Were you satisfied with the disposition of the referred case(s)? If dissatisfied, pleaseexplain: (OPEN-ENDED QUESTION RESPONSES)

Action Taken Was Not Adequate/Strong Enough (21 Responses)

* An unauthorized practice of law complaint resulted in nothing more than a "don't do itagain" admonition.

* Disappointed how the grievance committee process is used. Although there may beprobable cause, the process will forgive a certain violation and deem it as "no probablecause." In one case, the attorney representing the referred violator approached me later toapologize for the situation, and that the violator "owed him one" for using his influencewith the committee to get a finding of no probable cause. The Bar attorney likewiseapologized.

* Egregious behavior goes unpunished.

* Everything is dismissed. The system doesn't work.

* I am batting a thousand. The Bar decided the attorneys did nothing wrong. We refer casesand you throw them out the window.

* I conducted an evidentiary hearing over three or four days and was regrettably required tofind a lawyer had suborned perjury. After finding the lawyer guilty of contempt, Ireferred this matter to the Bar. I used to Chair a Grievance Committee when I practicedlaw, so I am very familiar with the process. The grievance committee assigned alawyer/member to investigate. This lawyer failed to investigate properly. She never spoketo me, she never spoke to any of the other lawyers in the case, and she never reviewedany transcripts. She merely called the lawyer whom I found in contempt; he deniedsuborning perjury and that's all she did. She recommended a finding of no probablecause. Her investigation was a joke and embarrassed the legal system and The FloridaBar.

* I didn't feel the case was handled well by counsel.

* I don't think the attorney learned a thing.

* I learned that it was merely a slap on the wrist. I won't be sending any more cases.

* I see a lot of unprofessional behavior in the courtroom and only refer the most egregiousof matters. Yet, you take these two cases and find NPC without even contacting me. I amvery dissatisfied and feel like I received a blow to the face.

* It was a lawyer with a long history. The result did nothing to solve the problem and it hasbecome a "joke" within the judiciary.

17

24 (10


44/64

* It was a slap on the hand for a serious offense.

* My complaint was not pursued and there was no reasonable explanation for it since thelawyer had been disciplined for similar complaints previously. The Bar assigned a

different lawyer to my complaint than the attorney who handled all of the othercomplaints. Both the investigating attorney and attorney being investigated were the samerace. I never heard anything regarding the complaint and I've checked and the attorneywas never disciplined as a result of my complaint.

* No strong action was taken.

* Results are always the same for the judges.

* The attorney was 10 days away from going on probation in a prior incident wherein hehad stipulated to a probation period. The event in front of me occurred 10 days prior to

his probation and while he was on probation he had another incident in front of anotherJudge. Both incidents were tried together by the Bar. He received 10 days of suspensionfor both incidents concurrent to each other. This punishment was far too lax for thegrossly unprofessional conduct exhibited by this attorney to two judges with his prioractions already resolved in probation.

* The case was dismissed without a thorough review. Referring cases to you is a waste oftime.

* The Florida Bar only slaps the wrists of lawyers who violate the rules of professionalconduct.

* The particular issue was not adequately addressed.

* While I understood the rationale for the resolution of the case, I believe the outcome wassomething short of a soft slap on the wrist.

* You are way too lenient.

Lack of Communication (13 Responses)

* Case was dismissed without anyone contacting me.

* Disposed of quickly and with no explanation to me.

* Do not know what happened, or if it is ongoing.

* I have not heard anything.

18

24 (10


45/64

* I never heard back.

* I never knew what happened.

* I was disappointed that no contact was ever made.

* I was not made aware of the disposition.

* I was very surprised at the result and no explanation was ever offered to me.

* I would have liked to know why Bar counsel instantly disposed of my case.

* Never had any contact with The Florida Bar and therefore, I don't know how the case wasresolved.

* No one ever told me the disposition. The cases simply disappeared.

* No one had the decency to tell me how the matter was handled.

Referral Recently Made; Case Still Pending (3 Responses)

* No communicated received yet in recent pending case.

* Still pending; satisfied up to this point.

* Two of the cases are still pending.

Process Takes Too Long (2 Responses)

* Process simply takes too long.

* Process took too long.

Mi

letter to gwynne alice young, florida bar president

Documents