STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
In
Re: JOHN TOMLINSON, JR., CASE NO.
96-1435FE
______________________________/
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly
designated Hearing Officer, Susan B. Kirkland, held a formal hearing in this
case on June 17, 1996, via video teleconference.
APPEARANCES
For John Tomlinson, Jr.: Stephen
Marc Slepin, Esquire
Stephen
Marc Slepin, P.A.
1114
East Park Avenue
Tallahassee,
Florida 32301
For Gene Flinn: No
appearance.
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUES
WHETHER John Tomlinson, Jr. is entitled to recover attorney's fees and
costs against Gene Flinn, and if so, in what amount.
PRELIMINARY
STATEMENT
On February 16, 1996, John Tomlinson, Jr. filed Respondent's Petition
for Attorney's Fee and Cost against Gene Flinn relating to Ethics Complaint
Number 95-159 which Flinn filed against Tomlinson and which the Florida
Commission on Ethics dismissed for legal insufficiency. The fee case was referred to the Division of
Administrative Hearings for assignment to a Hearing Officer. The final hearing was scheduled for June 5,
1996.
On May 15, 1996, Tomlinson filed a Motion/Request for Status Conference,
stating that Flinn had refused to accept Tomlinson's mailings relating to
discovery. A hearing on the motion was
held on May 22, 1996 via telephonic conference. Staff of the Division of Administrative Hearings had advised
Flinn's wife by telephone of the date and time of the hearing. Flinn did not participate in the hearing.
On May 22, 1996, Tomlinson filed a Motion to Change Venue and Request
for Telephone Hearing. The motion was
noticed to be heard by telephonic conference on May 29, 1996. Flinn failed to participate in the motion
hearing. The motion to change venue was
denied but the final hearing was continued to June 17, 1996 to be heard by
videoteleconference. Notice of the
rescheduling of the hearing was sent to the parties. Additionally, staff from the Division of Administrative Hearings
advised Flinn by telephone of the rescheduling of the final hearing. Mailings from the Division to Flinn have
been returned as unclaimed or refused.
The final hearing was held on June 17, 1996, and Flinn failed to
appear. Tomlinson's Exhibits 1-12,
including the deposition of Tomlinson, were admitted in evidence. Tomlinson waived the filing of a proposed
recommended order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Gene Flinn (Flinn),
filed Complaint Number 95-156 dated October
31, 1995, with the Commission on Ethics against John G. Tomlinson, Jr.,
(Tomlinson) alleging that Tomlinson committed the following unlawful acts:
a. Advising or instructing his
attorney to
suborn perjury by denying to the Executive
Director and Chairman of the Ethics Commission
the existence of Rose Upton.
b. Advising or instructing his
attorney to
certify false and misleading information to
the Ethics Commission concerning himself and
Rose Upton with the intent to influence the
Supreme Court in Flinn's disbarment proceedings.
c. Conspiring to or
participating in the act
of tampering with jurors in the 1991 trial of
Flinn v. Shields.
d. Forwarding misstatements
concerning the
Shield litigation to clerks of the Florida
Supreme Court to effect Flinn's disbarment and
to foreclose appeals.
e. Advising or instructing his
attorney to
falsely inform the Ethics Commission concerning
the status of law enforcement investigations
being conducted of Flinn.
f. Committing acts in violation
of federal
and state racketeering laws by providing false
information to other Judges of Compensation
Claims, resulting in loss of fees and costs to
Flinn.
g. Filing a fraudulent
application with the
Governor for reappointment.
2. On January 8, 1996, Bonnie
Williams, Executive Director of the Commission on Ethics, filed a
Recommendation of Legal Insufficiency with the Commission, recommending that
the Commission dismiss Complaint Number 95-156 without investigation as legally
insufficient.
3. On January 25, 1996, the
Commission entered a Public Report and Order Dismissing Complaint, dismissing
Complaint Number 95-156 for failure to constitute a legally sufficient
complaint. The order stated, "No
factual investigation preceded the review, and therefore the Commission's
conclusions do not reflect on the accuracy of the allegations of the
Complaint."
4. The unrebutted testimony of
Tomlinson is that the allegations in the Complaint are false. Based on the testimony of Tomlinson and the
case, The Florida Bar v. Flinn, 575 So.2d 634 (Fla. 1991), I find that Flinn
filed Complaint Number 95-156 with a reckless disregard for whether the
allegations in the Complaint were false.
5. The only evidence presented
relating to the amount of the attorney's fee requested is Exhibit Number 9 which is a letter from
Stephen Slepin (Slepin) to Tomlinson, stating that the fee for representing
Tomlinson regarding Complaint Number 95-156 was $10,000 plus expenses. On December 1, 1995, Slepin did file a five-page
response to the Commission on behalf of Tomlinson.
6. No evidence was presented as
to the amount of time that Slepin spent in representing Tomlinson relative to
Complaint Number 95-156.
7. No evidence was presented as
to the nature of the actual work performed by Slepin other than the written
response submitted by Slepin to the Commission. Exhibit 9 did indicate that Slepin would review the Complaint,
the previous Compliant, Flinn's disbarment proceedings and Flinn's federal actions and research the
applicable law. However, no evidence
was presented to show what work was actually done.
8. No evidence was presented to
show what the customary charge in the community is for such services.
9. No evidence was presented
concerning the experience, ability, and
reputation of the lawyer performing the services.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
10. The Division of
Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject
matter of this proceeding. Section
120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
11. Section 112.317(8), Florida
Statutes, provides:
In any case in
which the commission determines that a person has filed a complaint against a
public officer or employee with a malicious intent to injure the reputation of
such officer or employee by filing the complaint with knowledge that the
complaint contains one or more false allegations or with reckless disregard for
whether the complaint contains false
allegations of fact material
to a violation of this part, the complainant shall be liable for costs plus
reasonable attorney's fees incurred in the defense of the person complained
against. If the complainant fails to
pay such costs voluntarily within 30 days following such finding and dismissal
of the complaint by the commission, the commission shall forward such
information to the Department of Legal Affairs, which shall bring a civil
action to recover such costs.
12. Rule 34-5.0291(4), Florida
Administrative Code, provides that the respondent has the burden to establish
the grounds for awarding costs and attorney's fees by a preponderance of the
evidence.
13. The evidence did establish
that Flinn filed the Complaint with a reckless disregard of whether the
complaint contained false allegations of fact material to a violation of the
Code of Ethics. It is clear that Flinn
has demonstrated a pattern of filing frivolous actions against Tomlinson and
other Judges of Compensation Claims.
Thus, I find that Flinn filed Complaint 95-156 with a malicious intent
to injure the reputation of Tomlinson.
14. In Florida Patient
Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985), the Florida Supreme
Court adopted the criteria set forth in Disciplinary Rule 2-106(6) (now
renumbered 4-1.5) of the Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility to be
used in determining reasonable attorney's fees. The criteria to be considered include: (1) the time and labor
required, the novelty and difficulty of the question involved and the skill
requisite to perform the legal services properly; (2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of
the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer;
(3) the fee customarily charged in the
locality for similar services; (4) the
amount involved and the results obtained; (5)
the time limitations imposed by the client or of the circumstances;
(6) the nature and length of the
professional relationship with the client; (7)
experience, reputation and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing
the services; (8) whether the fee is
fixed or contingent.
15. In order to be awarded
attorney's fees pursuant to Section 112.317(8), Florida Statutes, Tomlinson
must establish that the fee requested is reasonable. Tomlinson has failed to produce evidence that demonstrates that
the $10,000 attorney's fee is reasonable.
No evidence was introduced concerning costs.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it
is
RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying John Tomlinson, Jr.'s
petition for attorney's fees.
DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of July, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon
County, Florida.
___________________________________
SUSAN B. KIRKLAND
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings
The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the
Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of July, 1996.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Stephen Marc Slepin, Esquire
Stephen Marc Slepin, P.A.
1114 East Park Avenue
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Gene Flinn
5100 Southwest 87th Avenue
Miami, Florida 33165
Carrie Stillman
Complaint Coordinator
Commission on Ethics
Post Office Box 15709
Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709
Bonnie Williams, Executive Director
Florida Commission On Ethics
Post Office Drawer 15709
Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709
Phil Claypool, General Counsel
Ethics Commission
2822 Remington Green Circle, Suite 101
Post Office Drawer 15709
Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO
SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written
exceptions to this recommended order.
All agencies allow each party at least ten days in which to submit
written exceptions. Some agencies allow
a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will
issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for
filing exceptions to this recommended order.
Any exceptions to this recommended order should be filed with the agency
that will issue the final order in this case.