14-001114EC In Re: David Mclean vs. *
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Thursday, August 28, 2014.


View Dockets  
Summary: Ethics Commission did not have jurisdiction over count for which it could not be clearly determined that the complainant had sworn to the underlying facts. As to other count, Advocate failed to prove substantial conflict prohibited by 112.313(7)(a).

1DMSI6N 6F ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS BEFORE THE OCT 2 9

10FILED .- STATE OF FLORIDA

15DATE ??. J c9 . .4f7f !> COMMISSION ON ETHICS COMMISSION ON ETHiCS

28In re DAVID McLEAN, )

33) Complaint No. 12-062

37Respondent. ) DOAH Case No. 14-1114EC

43)

44) Final Order No. 14-111

49FINAL ORDER AND PUBLIC REPORT

54This matter came before the State of Florida Commission on Ethics ("Commission"),

68meeting in public session on October 24, 2014, on the Recommended Order ("RO") of an

85Administrative Law Judge (" ALJ") of the Division of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH")

100rendered on August 28, 2014.

105Background

106This matter began with the filing of an ethics complaint (which included an amendment)

120by Michael Casey ("Complainant") in 2012 against David McLean ("Respondent"). The

135complaint alleged that the Respondent, as a Commissioner and Vice Mayor of the City of

150Margate ("City"), violated the following Florida Statutes: Section 112.313(6) (Misuse of Public

164Position), by misusing a City credit card; Section 112.3143 (Voting Conflicts), by voting on a

179motion to censure him and by voting on measures involving the use of City credit cards; Section

196112.313(7) (Conflicting Employment or Contractual Relationship), by improperly representing his

206employer before a special meeting of the City Commission on August 15, 2011, addressing his

221employer's company's liquor license application. By an order dated June 18, 2012, the

234Commission on Ethics' Executive Director determined that allegations of the complaint

245concerning misuse of City credit cards and representing his employer before the City

258Commission were legally sufficient to indicate possible violation of Sections 112.313(6),

269112.313(7)(a), and 112.3143(3)(a) and ordered Commission staff to investigate the complaint,

280resulting in a Report oflnvestigation ("ROI") dated December 7, 2012.

292By order dated January 30, 2013, the Commission found probable cause to believe the

306Respondent violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, by using a City of Margate credit card

320for personal use (Count 1), violated Section 112.3143(3)(a), Florida Statutes, by voting on a City

335Commission measure to censure him (Count II), and violated Section 112.313(7)(a), Florida

347Statutes (Count IV), by being employed by and representing an establishment seeking approval

360before the City Commission to use an alcoholic beverage license. The Commission found no

374probable cause to believe the Respondent violated Section 112.3143(3)(a), Florida Statutes, by

386voting on City Commission measures regarding City credit card use (Count III).

398The matter was forwarded to DOAH for assignment of an ALJ to conduct a formal

413hearing and prepare a recommended order. A formal evidentiary hearing was held before the

427ALJ via video teleconference on July 10, 2014. After conducting off-the-record negotiations, the

440Advocate and the Respondent agreed to the dismissal of the count alleging that the Respondent

455improperly voted on a motion to censure him in violation of Section 112.3143 (Count II). The

471Advocate and Respondent also agreed that, if the Ethics Commission has jurisdiction over the

485count alleging the Respondent improperly represented his employer before the City Commission

497in violation of Section 112.313(7)(a)(Count IV), the ALJ would apply a factual stipulation to be

512filed by the parties to determine whether the Respondent committed the alleged violation. The

526Respondent and the Advocate further agreed that, if the Advocate prevailed on Count IV, the

541Ethics Commission would impose no additional penalty in addition to the penalty imposed for

555violation of Count I (alleging that the Respondent misused a City credit card). The agreement

570between the Respondent and the Advocate stipulated that if Respondent is guilty of Count I,

585Count IV, or Counts I and IV, the penalty would be a $3,000 civil fine, censure, and a reprimand.

605The Respondent and the Advocate filed a joint factual stipulation on July 18, 2014. Both the

621Respondent and the Advocate filed proposed recommended orders with the ALJ.

632On August 28, 2014, the ALJ entered his Recommended ("RO") finding, under

646Conclusions of Law, that the Commission lacked investigative jurisdiction under Section

657112.322(1 ), Florida Statutes, and thus lacked jurisdiction to issue a public report finding that

672Respondent committed the violation alleged in Count IV and, for these reasons, DOAH lacked

686subject matter jurisdiction over Count IV. The ALJ further found that, even if the Ethics

701Commission had jurisdiction, the Advocate failed to prove a violation of Section

713112.313(7)(a)(Count IV). The ALJ recommended that the Commission enter a final order

725dismissing Counts II and IV, determining that Respondent violated Section 112.313(6), as

737alleged in Count I, and imposing a fine of $3,000, censure, and public reprimand against the

754Respondent. 1

756On September 11, 2014, the Advocate timely filed (with the Commission) exceptions to

769the RO. No exception was filed by the Respondent. Both the Respondent and the Advocate

784were notified of the date, time, and place of our final consideration of this matter; and both were

802given the opportunity to make argument during our consideration.

811Standards of Review

814Under Section 120.57(1)(1), Florida Statutes, an agency may reject or modify the

826conclusions of law and interpretations of administrative rules contained in a recommended order.

839However, the agency may not reject or modify findings of fact made by an ALJ unless a review

8571 Count IlL alleging that the Respondent improperly voted on measures involving the use of

872City credit cards in violation of Section 112.3143(3 )(a), Florida Statutes, is not at issue in this

889Final Order. As stated above, the Commission in its January 30, 2013, order found no probable

905cause as to Count III.

910of the entire record demonstrates that the findings were not based on competent, substantial

924evidence or that the proceedings on which the findings were based did not comply with the

940essential requirements of law. See, e.g., Freeze v. Department of Business Regulation, 556 So.

9542d 1204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), and Florida Department of Corrections v. Bradley, 510 So. 2d

9701122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). "Competent, substantial evidence" has been defined by the Florida

984Supreme Comi as such evidence as is "sufficiently relevant and material that a reasonable mind

999would accept it as adequate to support the conclusions reached." DeGroot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d

1015912, 916 (Fla. 1957).

1019The agency may not reweigh the evidence, may not resolve conf1icts in the evidence, and

1034may not judge the credibility of witnesses, because such evidential matters are within the sole

1049province ofthe ALJ. Heifetz v. Department of Business Regulation, 475 So. 2d 1277, 1281 (Fla.

10641st DCA 1985). Consequently, if the record of the DOAH proceedings discloses any competent,

1078substantial evidence to support a finding of fact made by the ALJ, the Commission on Ethics is

1095bound by that finding.

1099Under Section 120.57(1)(1), Florida Statutes, an agency may reject or modify the

1111conclusions of law over which it has substantive jurisdiction and the interpretations of

1124administrative rules over which it has substantive jurisdiction. When rejecting or modifying

1136such conclusion of law or interpretation of administrative rule, the agency must state with

1150particularity its reasons for rejecting or modifying such conclusion or interpretation and must

1163make a finding that its substituted conclusion or interpretation is as or more reasonable than that

1179which was rejected or modified.

1184Having reviewed the RO and the entire record of the proceeding and the Advocate's

1198exceptions and having heard the arguments of the Advocate and the Respondent, the

1211''

1212Commission on Ethics makes the following rulings, findings, conclusions, recommendation, and

1223disposition:

1224Rulings on Advocate's Exceptions

12281. In her first exception, the Advocate takes issue with paragraphs 27 and 28 of the

1244RO (which is within the portion ofthe RO labeled CONCLUSIONS OF LAW), and which state:

125927. The sole jurisdictional questions are whether Complainant swore or affirmed

1270to the facts constituting Counts I and IV. These questions arise because

1282Complainant never complied with the form's request for an explanation of his

1294complaints, but instead signed, under oath, two complaint forms, to which

1305Complainant attached a total of 14 documents. One of these documents consists

1317of a typewritten letter by Complainant that, although not addressed to the Ethics

1330Commission, serves as an explanation of the complaints stated in the letter.

1342Several of these documents contain Complainant's handwritten notes, which

1351include various complaints against Respondent.

135628. In addressing these jurisdictional issues, the Advocate misses the point in its

1369supplemental proposed recommended order when it argues that Complainant is

1379not required to base his complaint on matters within his personal knowledge, or

1392that the Ethics Commission may consider matters materially related to the

1403complaint at issue. Resolution of the jurisdictional questions in this case does not

1416turn on the quality of Complainant's knowledge of the facts, or whether the facts

1430reported by Complainant are hearsay or are materially related to the subject

1442complaint. The jurisdictional questions are whether Complainant has filed a

1452sworn complaint as to the matters contained in Counts I and IV or to anything else

1468to which the subjects of Counts I and IV are materially related. The jurisdictional

1482statute does not require much, but it requires that a complainant be willing to, and

1497in fact, swear or affirm to the facts underlying her complaint.

15082. More particularly, the Advocate requests that the Commission reject all of the

1521content or verbiage of paragraphs 27 and 28 and substitute the following language (offered on

1536page 5 of the Advocate's Exceptions to Recommended Order) for the totality of the language of

1552RO paragraphs 27 and 28:

1557The Commission on Ethics has an obligation to investigate alleged violations of

1569the Florida Ethics Code: Upon a written complaint executed on a form prescribed

1582by the commission and signed under oath or affirmation by any person ...

1595Section 112.324(l)(a) Fla. Stat. The Complaint and Complaint Amendment forms

1605tiled in this case are forms prescribed by the Commission through Rule 34-7.010,

1618F.A.C. The Oath sworn to by the Complainant states:

1627''

1628I, the person bringing this complaint do depose on oath or affirmation and say that

1643the facts set forth in the foregoing complaint and attachments thereto are true and

1657correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. (Complaint p.l, Amended

1669Complaint p. 1)

1672In this case, the Complainant submitted properly signed and notarized valid

1683complaints.

16843. In her second exception, the Advocate takes issue with paragraphs 29, 30, and 31

1699of the RO (which is within the portion of the RO labeled CONCLUSIONS OF LAW), and which

1716state:

171729. Complainant clearly explained--and thus swore to--the charges set forth in

1728Count I. Complainant stated that Respondent misused a City credit card in the

1741handwritten notes on the following documents: the City credit card agreement, the

1753Ethics Commission letter dated May 16, 2012, and the minutes of the meeting of

1767the City commission on March 21, 2012. Also, Complainant's typewritten letter at

1779page six of the Complaint twice charges Respondent with misusing a City credit

1792card.

179330. Complainant has not so clearly explained--and thus sworn to--the charges set

1805forth in Count IV. No handwritten notation touches on Respondent's appearance

1816at the August 15, 2011, special meeting of the City commission for the Tiki Bar,

1831nor is this matter mentioned in the typewritten letter on page six of the Complaint.

184631. Respondent's appearance at the August 15, 2011, special meeting of the City

1859commission is mentioned in only two documents--both online articles in the

1870MargateNews.net. Signing the complaint form verifies that "the facts set forth in

1882the complaint and attachments thereto are true and correct." This means either that

1895the complainant is verifying the facts explained in the complaint and contained in

1908the attachments, or the complainant is verifying the facts explained in the

1920complaint and verifying that the attached documents are true copies of the

1932originals. In other words, the form leaves unanswered the question of whether the

1945language, "the facts set forth in the," modifies "complaint" or "complaint" and

"1957attachments."

19584. The Advocate requests that the Commission delete paragraphs 29, 30, and 31 and

1972substitute the following language (offered on page 7 of the Advocate's Exceptions to

1985Recommended Order), for the totality of the language in RO paragraphs 29, 30, and 31:

2000The handwritten notes on the attachments to the complaint and amended

2011complaint address several issues, among which are the non-payment of a

2022promissory note, Respondent's misuse of City credit cards and his dealings

2033concerning a tiki bar. (Complaint pp. 4, 6, Amended Complaint pp. A3-A8)

2045Complainant also submitted copies of articles from the Margate news. (Complaint

2056pp. 7-9) One article details the special meeting wherein Respondent represented

2067his then-business partner for a vote on whether to grant his business' partner's tiki

2081bar a 2COP. (county permission to sell alcohol from a particular establishment.)

2093(Complaint p. 8) The news articles were an "attachment thereto" and as such, they

2107became part of the sworn complaint to be considered by the Commission.

21195. In her third exception, the Advocate takes issue with paragraphs 32, 33, and 34 of

2135the RO (which is within the portion of the RO labeled CONCLUSIONS OF LAW), and which

2151state:

215232. The Advocate would argue that "complaint" and "attachments" are modified

2163by "the facts set forth in the." But case law does not favor a liberal interpretation

2179of this jurisdictional statute in support of jurisdiction. Compare Kinzel v. City of

2192N. Miami, 212 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968) (failure to timely file a verified

2208complaint within statutory timeframe to challenge an election not excused due to

2220the "general proposition that when a statutory action is availed of[,] the provisions

2234for its exercise must be strictly followed").

224233. In an older, but more extensive, opinion, Edgerton v. International Co., 89 So.

22562d 488 (Fla. 1956), the Florida Hotel and Restaurant Commissioner commenced a

2268proceeding to suspend or revoke a hotel and coffee shop license, and the licensee

2282filed a petition for a writ of prohibition. A statute required the commissioner to

2296commence any suspension and revocation proceeding within 60 days of the

2307alleged offense. No statute defined when a proceeding was commenced, but one

2319statute provided that a proceeding "shall be by" serving a copy of the notice on

2334the licensee, and another statute provided that all notices to be served shall be

"2348delivered personally ... or by registered letter." The commissioner mailed the

2359notice on the 59th day, and it was delivered on the 61 st day.

237334. The court rejected the argument that commencement occurred when the

2384commissioner mailed the notice. Citing several opinions, the court noted that

2395administrative authorities are creatures of statute and have only such powers that

2407statutes confer on them, and the court is required to prohibit any exercise of

2421power if there is "reasonable doubt" as to its "lawful existence" (citation omitted).

2434Id. at 489-90.

24376. The Advocate requests that the Commission delete paragraphs 32, 33, and 34 and

2451substitute the following language (offered on page 8 of the Advocate's Exceptions to

2464Recommended Order), for the totality of the language in RO paragraphs 32, 33, and 34:

2479Prior court ruling supports a liberal inclusion of facts within a sworn complaint.

2492The Fifth District Court of Appeal in Osborne v. Commission on Ethics, 951 So.

25062d 25 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007), reviewed a Commission on Ethics Order denying an

2520award of attorney's fees from Milanick payable to Osborne because the body of

2533the ethics complaint filed by Milanick did not contain the false allegations that

2546formed the basis of the award. In Osborne. the false allegations were

2558subsequently submitted by Milanick's counsel during the course of the

2568investigation. Id. at 27. The Court considered the added false statements to be

2581part of the complaint and reversed the Commission's Order denying the award,

2593stating that the Commission's view of the complaint was "too restricted." I d.

26067. In her fourth exception, the Advocate takes issue with paragraph 35 of the RO

2621(which is within the portion ofthe RO labeled CONCLUSIONS OF LAW), and which states:

263535. Reasonable doubt exists as to whether Complainant swore or affirmed to

2647Respondent's appearance on August 15, 2011, at the special meeting of the City

2660commission. To resolve this doubt in favor of jurisdiction is unsupported by the

2673case law and risks ignoring the statutory requirement of a sworn complaint. If a

2687complainant is not required to identify his complaints in a clear manner, but is

2701allowed merely to attach a thick pile of news articles lobbing a variety of charges

2716at public officials and meeting minutes covering a myriad of statements by the

2729public and commission members, the sworn complaint form is a mere conduit of

2742the unsworn complaints of the publisher and commission.

27508. The Advocate requests that the Commission delete paragraph 35 and substitute

2762the following language (offered on page 9 of the Advocate's Exceptions to Recommended

2775Order), for the totality of the language in RO paragraph 35:

2786The layperson wishing to file an ethics complaint should not be held to the

2800standard wherein he be charged with labeling the public official's wrongdoing

2811with all possible statutory violations. The Complainant in this case attached

2822handwritten notations and filed newspaper articles which include reference to

2832Respondent representing his employer/business partner at a Commission meeting

2841to grant the new tiki bar a license to sell alcohol. (Complaint p. 8) The Complaints

2857exemplify what is required to put the subject matter and events before the

2870Commission on Ethics under Section 112.324, Florida Statutes and the

2880Commission Rules. The Executive Director of the Commission on Ethics is

2891empowered to review the facts contained in the complaint, determine whether a

2903breach of public trust exists, and order an investigation as appropriate. Rule 34-

29165002(1), F.A.C. In sum. a layperson should not be limited to presenting possible

2929wrongdoing only by wording the submission as would a lawyer.

29399. In her fourth exception, the Advocate takes issue with paragraph 36 of the RO

2954(which is within the portion of the RO labeled CONCLUSIONS OF LAW), and which states:

296936. As for Count IV, the Ethics Commission lacks investigative jurisdiction,

2980under section 112.322(1), Florida Statutes, and thus lacks the jurisdiction, under

2991section 112.322(2)(b ), Florida Statutes, to issue a public report finding that

3003Respondent committed the violation alleged in Count IV. For these reasons,

3014DOAH lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Count IV.

302210. The Advocate requests that the Commission delete paragraph 36 and substitute

3034the following language (offered on page 9 of the Advocate's Exceptions to Recommended

3047Order), for the totality of the language in RO paragraph 36:

3058In addition, the Commission on Ethics may look outside the four corners of the

3072complaint and consider violations and parties not contemplated by the

3082complainant. The legislature actually made this a duty of the Commission.

3093Section 112.322, Florida Statutes states:

3098It is the duty of the Commission on Ethics to receive and

3110investigate sworn complaints of violation of the code of ethics as

3121established in this part and of any other breach of public trust, as

3134provided in s. 8(f), Art. II of the State Constitution, including

3145investigation of all facts and parties materially related to the

3155complaint at issue. (Emphasis added.)

3160Rule 34-5.0043, F.A.C. further explains:

3165(1) Facts materially related to the complaint include facts which tend to show:

3178* * *

3181(a) A separate violation of Art. II, Sec. 8, Fla. Const. or the Code of Ethics by the

3199respondent from that alleged in the complaint which arise out of or in connection

3213with the allegations of the complaint.

3219* * *

3222(2) Where facts materially related to the complaint are discovered by the

3234investigator during the course of the investigation, the Executive Director shall

3245order an investigation of them and the investigator shall include them in the

3258investigative report. The Advocate may recommend and the Commission may

3268order a public hearing as to those violations of the Code of Ethics which are

3283indicated by such facts. From that point in the proceedings until final disposition

3296of the complaint, such facts shall be treated as if they were initially alleged in the

3312complaint at issue.

331511. In her fifth exception, the Advocate takes issue with paragraph 37 to the extent

3330that it restates prior conclusions rejected by the Commission.

333912. The Advocate requests that the Commission revise paragraph 37 to delete the

3352following language (otiered on page 11 of the Advocate's Exceptions to Recommended Order)

3365from RO paragraph 37:

"3369In the alternative, even if the Ethics Commission has jurisdiction ... "

338013. To the extent the ALJ has concluded that the Commission lacks investigative

3393jurisdiction where a complaint contains allegations based in whole or in part on attached

3407documents, where such allegations do not expressly state all possible statutory violations, and

3420where the Commission investigation includes facts materially related to the complaint at issue,

3433such is an erroneous view of the law. Therefore, while we adopt RO paragraphs 27, 28, 29, 30,

345131, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37 to the extent such paragraphs make factual findings, we reject

3469their contents, express or implied, concluding the Commission lacks investigative jurisdiction as

3481stated above and we adopt the revisions recommended in the Advocate's exceptions.

349314. In so doing, we are aware that the ALJ made a determination that the evidence in

3510this matter was insufficient to establish that the Respondent violated Section 112.313(7)(a),

3522Florida Statutes, and his determination is of an evidential fact nature or an "ultimate fact" nature,

3538which we cannot now disturb. Go in v. Commission on Ethics, 658 So. 2d 1131, 1138 (Fla. 1st

3556DCA 1995).

355815. However, as the agency Constitutionally and statutorily charged with

3568administering Section 112.3143(3)(a), our action as to paragraphs 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34,

358435, 36, and 37 of the RO is not without good reason. While the proofs in this particular case did

3604not rise to the level of establishing a violation of Section 112.313(7)(a), we cannot adopt as our

3621own a view that the Commission lacks investigative jurisdiction as stated above in paragraph 13.

3636By substituting our view of the law for that of the ALJ, we find that the substituted view is as or

3657more reasonable than the ALJ's view.

366316. To summarize, we are aware of the requirements and limitations of Chapter 120,

3677Florida Statutes, concerning review by an agency of a recommended order of an ALJ. Goin,

3692supra. However, we also are aware of deference accorded an agency regarding its construction

3706of a statute which it administers. Velez v. Commission on Ethics, 739 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 5th DCA

37241999). To those ends, it is not our intent or our action to disturb any finding of fact of the ALJ;

3745but it is our intent and our effect, under Section 120.57(1 )(1), Florida Statutes, to ref1ect the

3762correct legal interpretation of the Commission's jurisdiction.

3769Findings of Fact

3772The Commission on Ethics accepts and incorporates into this Final Order and Public

3785Report the findings of fact in the Recommended Order from the Division of Administrative

3799Hearings.

3800Conclusions of Law

3803Except to the extent rejected or modified above, the Commission on Ethics accepts and

3817incorporates into this Final Order and Public Report the conclusions of law in the Recommended

3832Order from the Division of Administrative Hearings.

3839Disposition

3840Accordingly, the Commission on Ethics dismisses Counts II and IV, determines that

3852Respondent violated Section 112.313(6), as alleged in Count L and recommends that the

3865Governor impose a tine of $3,000, censure, and public reprimand against the Respondent as

3880agreed by the Respondent and the Advocate and recommended by the ALJ.

3892ORDERED by the State of Florida Commission on Ethics meeting in public session on

3906October 24, 2014.

3909Date Rendered

3911-

3912inda McKee Robison

3915Chair

3916THIS ORDER CONSTITUTES FINAL AGENCY ACTION. ANY PARTY

3924WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS ORDER HAS THE RIGHT TO

3935SEEK JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER SECTION 120.68, AND SECTION

3943112.3241, FLORIDA STATUTES, BY FILING A NOTICE OF

3951ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL PURSUANT TO RULE 9.110 FLORIDA

3958RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE, WITH THE CLERK OF THE

3967COMMISSION ON ETHICS, AT EITHER 325 JOHN KNOX ROAD,

3976BUILDING E, SUITE 200, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32303 OR P.O.

3985DRAWER 15709, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32317-5709; AND BY FILING

3993A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL ATTACHED TO WHICH IS A

4005CONFORMED COPY OF THE ORDER DESIGNATED IN THE NOTICE OF

4015APPEAL ACCOMPANIED BY THE APPLICABLE FILING FEES WITH THE

4024APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. THE NOTICE OF

4032ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE

4042DATE THIS ORDER IS RENDERED.

4047cc: Mr. C. Edward McGee, Attorney for Respondent

4055Ms. Diane L. Guillemette, Commission Advocate

4061Mr. Michael Casey, Complainant

4065The Honorable Robert E. Meale, Division of Administrative Hearings

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 02/24/2015
Proceedings: Final Order and Public Report filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/29/2014
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 09/09/2014
Proceedings: Transmittal letter from Claudia Llado forwarding Advocates Proposed Exhibits, to the agency.
PDF:
Date: 08/28/2014
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 08/28/2014
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held July 10, 2014). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 08/28/2014
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 08/08/2014
Proceedings: Advocate's Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/31/2014
Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/25/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Commission on Ethics Opinions Cited filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/25/2014
Proceedings: Advocate's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/17/2014
Proceedings: Joint Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/14/2014
Proceedings: (Respondent's) Memorandum of Law and Fact in Support of Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and Objection to Jurisdiction filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/14/2014
Proceedings: (Respondent's) Objection to Proceedings Due to Lack of Jurisdiction and Notice of Appearance Preserving Said Objection filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/11/2014
Proceedings: Order on Post-hearing Activities.
Date: 07/10/2014
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 07/09/2014
Proceedings: Respondent's Motion to Continue filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/09/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (C. Edward McGee) filed.
Date: 07/03/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner's Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 07/03/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Advocate's Proposed Exhibits filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/20/2014
Proceedings: Advocate's Response to Respondent's Objection to Proceedings Due to Lack of Jurisdiction filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/10/2014
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Taking Deposition (of Leslie W. May) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/30/2014
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for July 10, 2014; 9:00 a.m.; Lauderdale Lakes, FL).
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition (of David McLean) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition (of Leslie W. May) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition (of Kenneth Suhandron) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition (of Eugene Steinfeld) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition (of Frank Porcella) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2014
Proceedings: Joint Motion to Continue filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/04/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for May 13, 2014; 10:30 a.m.; Lauderdale Lakes and Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 04/03/2014
Proceedings: Unilateral Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/17/2014
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 03/17/2014
Proceedings: Advocate's Notice of Service of Advocate's Discovery Requests filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/14/2014
Proceedings: Order of Finding Probable Cause filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/14/2014
Proceedings: Advocate's Amended Recommendation (as to Allegation Four) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/14/2014
Proceedings: Advocate's Recommendation filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/14/2014
Proceedings: Report of Investigation filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/14/2014
Proceedings: Determination of Investigative Jurisdiction and Order to Investigate filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/14/2014
Proceedings: Complaint Amendment filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/14/2014
Proceedings: Complaint filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/14/2014
Proceedings: Agency referral filed.

Case Information

Judge:
ROBERT E. MEALE
Date Filed:
03/14/2014
Date Assignment:
03/17/2014
Last Docket Entry:
02/24/2015
Location:
Lauderdale Lakes, Florida
District:
Southern
Agency:
ADOPTED IN PART OR MODIFIED
Suffix:
EC
 

Counsels

Related DOAH Cases(s) (1):

Related Florida Statute(s) (10):

Related Florida Rule(s) (2):