Filing # 15886545 Electronically Filed 07/14/2014 04:12:44 PM
RECEIVED, 7/14/2014 16:13:45, John A. Tomasino, Clerk, Supreme Court
BEFORE THE FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION
STATE OF FLORIDA
SC 13-1333
1NQUTRY CONCERNING A JUDGE
LAURA M. WATSON, NO. 12-6 13
/
FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION'S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO
THE HONORABLE LAURA M. WATSON'S PRINCIPAL BRIEF
IN OPPOSITION TO THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE HEARING PANEL,
JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION
The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission ("JQC"), by and through its
undersigned counsel, hereby files its Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to
The Honorable Laura M. Watson's Principal Brief in Opposition to the Findings,
Conclusions, and Recommendations of the Hearing Panel, Judicial Qualifications
Commission.
As grounds therefor, the JQC states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1.
On April 15, 2014, the Hearing Panel of the JQC issued its Findings,
Conclusions and Recommendations ("Recommendation") in this matter.
2.
On April 17, 2014, this Court issued an Order in which it directed
Judge Watson to "show cause on or before May 7, 2014, why the recommended
action [removal] should not be granted." ("Show Cause Order"). Judge Watson
did not file a response to the Show Cause Order by May 7, 2014, but instead filed
several other motions seeking to extend and/or toll her time to respond to the Show
Cause Order.
2.
By Order dated June 12, 2014, this Court directed Judge Watson to
file her response to the Court's Show Cause Order by June 23, 2014, failing which
this matter would be submitted to the Court for consideration without a response.
3.
On June 23, 2014, Judge Watson filed her Principal Brief in
Opposition to the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations of the Hearing
Panel, Judicial Qualifications Commission ("Response").'
4.
In accordance with Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.310(b)(2) and the time
permitted for service under Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.5 14, the JQC's reply to Judge
Watson's Response must be served July 21, 2014.
5.
Judge Watson's Response is 105 pages long. In addition to the text in
the Response, Judge Watson has filed an appendix of several hundred pages
("Appendix"). Exhibit 6 of the Appendix is an annotated copy of the Hearing
Panel's Recommendation in which Judge Watson includes additional argument
(totaling approximately 23 single-spaced pages) as to why certain of the Hearing
Panel's findings should not be accepted by this Court. Those arguments are
incorporated by reference at page 23 of Judge Watson's Response. A sample of
Judge Watson filed an amended Response on June 25, 2014.
the argument contained in Judge Watson's Appendix is attached hereto as
Exhibit A.
6.
Inclusive of the 105 pages in the Response and the 23 single-spaced
pages of argument contained in Exhibit 6 of her Appendix, Judge Watson has
submitted a response consisting of approximately 196 pages if the 23 single-spaced
pages in her Appendix were double-spaced (e.g. 46 pages) and then added to the
length of the Response (105 +46= 196).
6.
Due to the length of Judge Watson's Response, the JQC respectfully
requests an extension of time of 10 days (e.g. through July 31, 2014) to serve its
reply to Judge Watson's Response.
7.
The undersigned certifies that prior to filing this motion, he conferred
with Robert Sweetappile, counsel for Judge Watson, and that he is authorized to
represent Judge Watson has no objection to the relief sought in this motion.
Is! Lansing C. Scriven
MARVIN E. BARKIN, ESQ.
Florida Bar No. 003564
[email protected]
LANSING C. SCRIVEN, ESQ.
Florida Bar No. 729353
[email protected]
TRENAM, KEMKER, SCHARF, BARKIN,
FRYE, O'NEIL & MLJLLIS, P.A.
101 East Kennedy Blvd., Suite 2700
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: 813-223-7474 I Fax: 813-229-6553
Special Counsel to the Florida Judicial
Qualifications Commission
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION'S MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO THE HONORABLE
LAURA M. WATSON'S PRINCIPAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
HEARING PANEL, JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION has
been furnished by E-Mail on this 14th day of July, 2014 to the following:
Lauri Waidman Ross, Esq.
Ross & Girten
9130 South Dadeland Boulevard
Miami, FL 33 156-7818
1wrpalaurilaw.corn
Colleen Kathryn O'Loughlin, Esq.
Colleen Kathryn O'Loughlin, P.A.
P. 0. Box 4493
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33338
[email protected]
Honorable Laura Marie Watson
Circuit Judge, 17th Judicial Circuit
201 S.E. 6th Street, Room 1005B
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
[email protected]
[email protected]
The Honorable Kerry I. Evander
Fifth District Court of Appeal
300 South Beach Street
Daytona Beach, FL 32114-5002
evanderkflcourts.org
Robert A. Sweetapple, Esq.
Alexander Varkas, Jr., Esq.
Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, PL
165 East Boca Raton Road
Boca Raton, FL 33432
p1eadings(sweetapplelaw.com
[email protected]
David B. Rothman, Esq.
Rothman & Associates, P.A.
Special Counsel to The Florida Bar
200 S. Biscayne Blvd,, Suite 2770
Miami, FL 33131
dbr@ rothmanIgMers.com
,
Jay S. Spechier, Esq.
Jay Spechier, P.A.
Museum Plaza - Suite 900
200 South Andrews Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, FL 3330 1-1864
j ay@i ayspechler. corn
Is! Lansing C. Scriven
Attorney
(
Exhibit A
INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE,
LAURA MARIE WATSON NO.12-613 SC 13-1333
PAGE 4: ERRONEOUS FINDINGS AM) CONCLUSIONS
The findings identified by numbers 9), 10), 11), 12), 13) and 14) are erroneous and
should be rejected by the Court for the following reasons:
9) The assertion by the JQC that "[b]ecause the Florida Bar does not have authority
to maintain disciplinary action against a judge, its file was forwarded to the
FJQC," lacks evidentiary support and JQC fails to note any record citation for this
conclusion. While it is true that the Florida Bar does not have authority to maintain
disciplinary action against a judge (pp.
in brief), there is no record evidence
to support the Florida Bar forwarded its file to the JQC for action. It is well
documented that Stewart and Hearon filed complaints with the JQC. (T. 111-1 12,
and 166).
ThE JQC FINAL ORDER MISREPRESNTS THE FORMAL CHARGES
10) The JQC asserts that "[t]he Notice essentially charges the respondent judge
with "(1) entering into an 'aggregate settlement agreement' between clients and
lawyers with conflicting interests." (mphasis supplied). This charge does not
appear in the Notice ofFormal Charges (Tab 5 follows here for convenience). The
words "enter[ed] into an 'aggregate settlement agreement' between clients and
lawyers with conflicting interests" do not appear in the chargingdocument. In the
Notice ofFormal Charges, 1113, and 14 discussed a May, 2004 attempt at
settlement which was rejected. Then, as noted in ¶18, the proposed MOU was
amended and the terms altered so that there was no aggregate settlement:
"[t]hereafier, the MOU was amended, arbitrarily allocating $1.75 million dollars of
the total settlement of the Goldcoast plaintiff's bad faith claims." Notice ofFormal
Charges ¶18.
The JQC's Final Order ultimately fmds that there was no aggregate settlement of
14.5 million. Watson, 1A received $3,075,000 and the Gold Coast bad faith suit
settled for" a separate payment of $1 .75 million" which was distributed according
to the written contract. (p. 22). Further, the JQC order acknowledges that:
11)12) The claims that Judge Watson "ignored multiple conflicts of interest,
misrepresenting the terms of the settlement to the clients to obtain releases to
trigger payment, manipulating the settlement to obtain the most of it as attorney's
fees, and by discharging Stewart, Ct al. without cause were discarded by the
Investigative Panel and not charged in the Notice ofFormal Charges. In an
abundance of caution, pursuant to Rule 6, FJCQR, Judge Watson demanded a no
probable cause finding for the investigative charges that did not appear in the
Notice of Formal Charges. See Tab 41. Judge Evander assured Judge Watson that
the only charges that would be heard by the Hearing Panel are those filed in the
Notice ofFormal Charges. Tab 40 and pp.6-9 of brief, which are attached for the
Court's convenience.
Judge Watson objected and made c1ar that she was not trying any issues by
consent and that the charges must be in the formal charging document. (T.
116:21-25; 117:1-10). Further, during the trial, Judge Evander made numerous
filings that the panel will disregard evidence regarding the reasonable value of
Judge Watson's services and that the JQC is not to consider any claim that Judge
Watson overcharged her clients.
Judge Evander annunciated this position numerous times during the final hearing
as reflected in Tab 7 (attaching T. 80-81; 134-135; 198-202; 243-249). Based upon
this assertion, Judge Evander excluded much of Judge Watson's evidence of the
time and labor her Watson, PA expended in the Gold Coast bad faith case and the
individual PIP cases handled by the Watson, PA on behalf of her 85 clients. Tab 7,
T. 198-202, 243-244. As stated by Judge Evander:
[T]he complaint does not allege that Judge Watson violated the
rules of discipline by charging excessive fees ... So there is no allegation
about whether she spent 100 hours on this case or one million hours on
this case or whether she spent [a] thousand [hours] and claims she spent
2,000. That is not alleged. It is not where we're going to go. I've ruled
on it a couple of times. It is not relevant to these allegations here.
And because I've made the ruling, this panel is not going to come
back with a finding- that she overbilled or anything like that.
It's not
alleged in the complaint, so it's not at issue... (Emphasis supplied). (T.
247-24 8).
Not only was testimony and documentary evidence presented that that Judge
Watson's clients were fully infonned of all matters. At the time of the 2004
settlement, the Bar Rules did not require informed consent to be in writing. Rule 41.4 required that "fal lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status
of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information."
Explaining Matters to the client required a lawyer negotiating on behalf of a client
"inform the client of communications from another party, and take reasonable steps
that permit the client to make a decision regarding a serious offer from another
party ... A lawyer who receives from opposing counsel an offer of settlement in a
civil controversy ...should promptly inform the client of its substance unless prior
discussions with the client have left it clear that the proposal will be unacceptable..
Rule 4-1.4, Comments, Explaining Matters.
Two years after the settlement, in 2006, the Rules of Professional Conduct changed
dramatically in 2006, (Tab 14) and all or most of the above language was deleted in
the 2006 rule change and replaced with the more stringent requirement that clients
receive written consent in most situations.
13) The JQC asserts that "[t]he Notice essentially charges the respondent judge
with "(5) arbItrary allocation ofsettlement proceeds which maximized attorneys'
fees to herself at the expense qLother clients and lawyers." (Emphasis supplied).
The Notice ofFormal Charges does not charge Judge Watson with maximizinE
attorncys 'fees to herself at the expense of other clients and lawyers. The Notice of
Formal Charges at ¶1113 and 14 discussed a May, 2004 attempt at settlement which
"was intended to maximize your attorneys' fees at the expense of the clients and
the bad faith claim attorneys" but, this settlement was rejected. (111 8, the proposed
MOU was amended and the terms altered). Moreover, this claim that the
respondent manipulated the allocation of the settlement to maximize her attorney's
was discarded by the Investigative Panel and the subject of Judge Watson's Rule 6
demand for no probable cause.
Significantly, Judge Evander made numerous rulings that the panel will disregard
evidence regarding the reasonable value of Judge Watson's services and that the
JQC is not to consider any claim that Judge Watson overcharged her clients. As
stated by Judge Evander:
[T]he complaint does not allege that Judge Watson violated the
rules of discipline by charging excessive fees ... So there is no allegation
about whether she spent 100 hours on this case or one million hours on
this case or whether she spent [a] thousand [hours] and claims she spent
2,000. That is not alleged. It is not where we're going to go. I've ruled
on it a couple of times. It is not relevant to these allegations here.
And because I've made the ruling, this panel is not 110 ing to come
back with p finding that she overbilled or anything like that. It's not
alleged in the complaint, so it's not at issue... (Emphasis supplied). (T.
247-248).
Judge Evander annunciated this position numerous times during the final hearing
as reflected in Tab 7 (attaching T. 80-81; 134-135; 198-202; 243-249).
'-
14) The JQC asserts that "[t]he Notice essentially charges the respondent judge
With (6) keepiflF the actual terms of'the settlement secret from clients and cocounsel." (Emphasis supplied). This charge does not appear in the Notice of
Formal Charges for the same reasons set forth for numbers 11) and 12) above.
© Copyright 2024 ExpyDoc
