The Florida Supreme Court has disbarred an Orlando plaintiffs’ lawyer after the court said he intentionally deceived a trial court and his former wife about his income.
Karl Koepke, a practicing attorney since 1965, is known for wrongful death, injury and medical malpractice suits. He filed false statements with a trial court, failed to produce subpoenaed documents, then moved $400,000 to a trust so that his ex-wife could not reach it, the high court said in an opinion posted Thursday.
The opinion overrides a Florida Bar referee who had recommended a one-year suspension from law practice.
“In reaching the conclusion that Mr. Koepke must be disbarred, we are mindful that divorce proceedings can bring out the worst in people,” Justice John Couriel wrote for the court. “Yet even at one’s worst, we expect a lawyer’s oath to mean something. Indeed, we expect the oath to mean something then, especially.”
“I have no comment, but I will say that I have ultimate confidence in our American judicial system,” Koepke said Thursday when reached by telephone.
Koepke, who was selected for recognition by the Super Lawyers website in 2009-2011, and his wife divorced in 1990. In 2014, Koepka fell substantially behind in alimony payments, and his ex-wife filed a motion for contempt, seeking $88,000 in arrearages, the court explained. While that was pending, Koepke settled a personal injury case that entitled him to $400,000 in attorney fees, the court explained.
When his former wife’s attorney got wind of that, he requested documents about the settlement and fees. Koepke initially refused to produce them, the court said. After the trial court ordered him to do so, he filed a fee agreement but not the settlement agreement. Ten days later, Koepke filed a document stating flatly that there was no settlement.
After being ordered to appear in court, with the file on the personal injury case, he showed up – without the file, the high court said. After a recess, Koepke returned to the witness stand with the file and the judge found the settlement agreement.
“Undeterred, Mr. Koepke made a series of still more consequential decisions,” Justice Couriel wrote, referring to a $400,000 trust the lawyer set up for himself and his grandchildren.
A week later, Koepka offered his ex-wife a settlement of $100,000 if she would drop all pending court actions, including a contempt-of-court motion. She refused. The trial judge found Koepke guilty of criminal contempt and sentenced him to 30 days in jail.
“The trial court found that he was untruthful and intentionally misleading in his discovery responses to the former wife to delay and obfuscate the former wife’s discovery of the settlement agreement in the personal injury case,” the Supreme Court opinion noted.
The trial judge referred Koepka to the Bar for disciplinary review. After the Bar recommended disbarment, Koepke filed his response to the Supreme Court four days late. He was directed to file again, but he again missed the deadline – by 61 days, the court said.
“Disbarment is the appropriate sanction for Mr. Koepke under our case law and the standards,” the Supreme Court said in its opinion. “His conduct demonstrated a willful lack of candor with the court and abuse of the legal process. We focus on the intentionality of his actions, his selfish motive, and the serious, adverse impact that his actions had on the parties and underlying case.”
Disbarment, rather than suspension, is appropriate when the attorney “caused serious, rather than nonserious, interference with a legal proceeding or when the attorney knowingly violated a court order for his benefit.”
The lawyer abused the legal process and cost more than 100 hours of attorney time and “hours upon hours” of court time to resolve the matter, the justices noted, quoting from the trial judge’s opinion.
The disbarment is effective in 30 days, giving Koepke time to close out his practice and protect the interest of existing clients.
The court has yet to issue a decision on another attorney that the Florida Bar has moved to disbar. Scot Strems, of Miami, has been accused of filing thousands of unnecessary lawsuits against insurers in property claims disputes, along with other violations.
The court on Thursday did post changes to its rules of civil procedure, available here.
No comments:
Post a Comment