Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
THE FLORIDA BAR, Supreme Court Case
Complainant, No. SCl2-667The Florida Bar File
v. Nos. 2011-70,471(11L) and
DANIEL JOSHUA ZEMEL, 2011-70,487 (11L)
Respondent.
INITIAL BRIEF
Jennifer R. Falcone Moore, Bar CounselThe Florida Bar444 Brickell AvenueRivergate Plaza, Suite M-100Miami, Florida 33131-2404(305) 377-4445Florida Bar No. [email protected]
Kenneth Lawrence Marvin, Staff CounselThe Florida Bar651 E. Jefferson StreetTallahassee, Florida 32399-2300(850) 561-5600Florida Bar No. [email protected]
John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive DirectorThe Florida Bar651 E. Jefferson StreetTallahassee, Florida 32399-2300(850) 561-5600Florida Bar No. [email protected]
TABLEOFCONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................... i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii
SYMBOLS AND REFERENCES ........................................................................... iii
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND OF THE FACTS............................................1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...............................................................................14
ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................15
CONCLUSION........................................................................................................19
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.................................................................................20
CERTIFICATE OF TYPE, SIZE AND STYLE AND ANTI-VIRUS SCAN........21
1
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
The Florida Bar v. O'Connor, 945 So.2d 1113 (Fla. 2006). ................................... 15
Rules Regulating The Florida Bar
2-9.11....................................................................................................................... 173-7.13................................................................................................................... 1, 124-3.3(a).......................................................................................................... 1, 12, 134-4.2..................................................................................................................... 1, 134-8.2(a).......................................................................................................... 1, 12, 134-8.4(c).......................................................................................................... 1, 12, 134-8.4(d).......................................................................................................... 1, 12, 13
Constitutional Provisions
Art. V, §15, Fla. Const. ........................................................................................... 15
11
SYMBOLS AND REFERENCES
For the purpose of this brief, Daniel Joshua Zemel may be referred to as
"Respondent". The Florida Bar may be referred to as "The Florida Bar" or the
"Bar". The referee may be referred to as the "Referee". Additionally, the Rules
Regulating the Florida Bar may be referred to as the "Rules" and the Florida
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions may be referred to as the "Standards".
References to the Report of Referee will be by the symbol "ROR" followed
by the corresponding page number(s). References to the transcript of the final
hearing held on November 13, 2012 will be by the symbol "TR" followed by the
corresponding page number(s).
References to The Florida Bar's exhibits will be by TFB, followed by the
exhibit number.
1H
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND OF THE FACTS
On April 9, 2012, the Florida Bar filed a formal Complaint, alleging that
Respondent, Mr. Daniel Joshua Zemel, violated Rules 3-7.13(Incapacity Not
Related to Misconduct), 4-3.3(a) (False Evidence; Duty to Disclose), 4-4.2
(Communication with Person Represented by Counsel), 4-8.2(a) (Impugning
Qualifications and Integrity of Judges or Other Officers), 4-8.4(c) (A lawyer shall
not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation),
and 4-8.4(d) (A lawyer shall not engage in conduct in connection with the practice
of law that is prejudicial to the administration ofjustice) of the Rules Regulating
The Florida Bar. Specifically, based on its concerns regarding Respondent's mental
state, the Florida Bar alleged that Respondent should either be found guilty of these
Rule violations and given a rehabilitative suspension, or in the alternative, be placed
on the inactive list based on mental incapacity unrelated to misconduct.
This Court referred the matter to the Eleventh Judicial Circuit for
appointment of a referee, and the Honorable Spencer J. Multack was appointed. On
October 15, 2012 the Referee heard and denied Respondent's motion for Summary
Judgment, and the matter proceeded to Final Hearing on November 13, 2012. The
Referee took judicial notice of the two underlying civil actions in which
1
Respondent was a litigant, and which form the basis for the present disciplinary
proceeding.1 (ROR 2).
The following evidence was presented at the Final Hearing in this cause:
COUNT I
Respondent was hired by Ben-Ezra and Katz, P.A. ("BEKPA") on February
17, 2009 to aid in the firm's foreclosure practice. (TFB Ex. 1). Marc Ben-Ezra and
Marvin Katz were principles in BEKPA. (TFB Ex. 1). Respondent was originally
hired by BEPKA to fill an entry level clerical position. (TFB Ex. 1). At some point
after his initial hiring Respondent began working in BEPKA's compliance
department, ensuring that various foreclosure documents were in compliance with
then existing law. (TFB Ex. 1; TR 176). As Respondent's employment continued he
began exceeding the scope of his employment by assuming unauthorized
managerial functions within the firm. (TFB Ex. 1).
Respondent evidenced erratic and troubling behavior during his employment
at BEKPA. (TFB Ex. 1). Respondent insisted he was hired to manage and run the
Compliance Department despite his employer's statements to the contrary. (TFB
Ex. 1). Respondent was placed under the temporary supervision ofNicole Shacket.
Zemel v. Zemel, 2010-18388FC04 and Ben-Ezra and Katz P.A. et al. v. DanielZemel, 10-52720CA.
2
(TFB Ex. 1, Exhibit B, 1). Respondent became increasingly hostile and aggressive
towards his superiors. (TFB Ex. 1). He became convinced that Shacket was not
doing an adequate job of managing the department, and sent her an email to that
effect on January 4, 2010. (TFB Ex. 1, Exhibit B, 13-15). In response to this email
Shacket spoke to Ben-Ezra and Katz, and on January 11, 2010 Respondent was
terminated for insubordination due to his increasingly aggressive conduct towards
his superiors (TFB Ex. 1, Exhibit B).
Respondent exhibited signs of paranoia and grandiose delusions, and became
convinced that people were conspiring against him. Under the belief that Shacket
was the sole cause for his termination, Respondent wrote Shacket demanding that
she correct the situation. (TFB Ex. 5, Exhibit A, page. 6). His strategy was
unsuccessful, and on July 5, 2010 Respondent emailed Marvin Katz blaming
BEKPA and its employees for his wrongful termination. (TFB Ex. 1, Exhibit C).
Respondent threatened BEKPA with criminal charges unless he received a
settlement offer of $375,000.00 and a letter clearing him of any wrongdoing. (TFB
Ex. 1, Exhibit C). Respondent requested that Katz forward this email to Ben-Ezra,
Shakett, and an additional employee, Lisa Rogers. (TFB Ex. 1, Exhibit C). BEKPA
and its associates did not furnish the $375,000.00. Undeterred, Respondent
3
increased his demand to $1,800,000.00 and upon BEKPA's refusal to pay, he raised
the sum to $2,500,000.00. (TFB Ex. 1, Exhibit A).
In response to Respondent's increasing communications, BEKPA hired
attorney Stephen Zukoff. (TR 20, 26). On September 16, 2010, Zukoff wrote
Respondent alerting him that any and all communications were to be directed to
him, and him alone. (TFB Ex. 2; TR 27). Respondent was specifically told to have
"no direct contact with [Zukoff's] clients, unless allowed by law." (TFB Ex. 2; TR
28).
Despite his direct knowledge that the opposing parties were represented and
did not wish to communicate with him, Respondent emailed Zukoff, BEKPA, and
its Partners on September 21, 2010, in clear violation of the Rules. (TFB Ex. 2;
TFB Ex. 3; TR 30, 56). In this email Respondent attempted to interfere with the
attorney-client relationship when he directly impugned Zukoff's competence,
alleged Zukoff had a pendency to break the Rules of Professional Conduct, and
stated they would both be better off if Zukoff had killed himself during his divorce.
(TFB Ex. 3; TR 30-33). Additionally, despite the direct admonition not to
communicate with the represented party, Respondent acknowledged that he did so
and attempted to justify his misconduct by explaining that he had no choice due to
Zukoff's "propensity for trying to hide [his] incompetence. . . ." (TFB Ex. 3; TR
4
32). Respondent also made additional threats to disparage BEKPA's clientele in a
public blog authored by Respondent. (TFB Ex. 1, Exhibit A page 58 & Exhibit B).
These actions led BEKPA to file a "Petition for Temporary and Permanent
Restraining Order and Other Relief," seeking to enjoin Respondent from contacting
or disparaging BEKPA and its clientele on September 28, 2010. (TFB Ex. 1,
Exhibit A). Undeterred, Respondent emailed Zukoff and his clients once again on
October 6, 2010, reiterating his belief that Zukoffhad a tendency to hide pertinent
information, and that he would stop contacting BEKPA only upon its partners'
personally telling Respondent to desist in the communications. (TFB Ex. 4; TR 36).
Indeed, Respondent stated that he was free to "copy these emails to anyone else [he]
like[d]- as, for instance, the entire [S]outh [F]lorida [J]ewish community." (TFB
Ex. 4; TR 36). Based on Respondent's continued persistence in such aggressive,
erratic, hostile and implicitly threatening behavior, BEKPA felt it had no choice but
to file the instant grievance with the Florida Bar.
On October 22, 2010, in response to BEKPA's petition for injunction,
Respondent sent BEKPA a document entitled "Answer, Affirmative Defenses,
Third-Party Complaint, and Counter-Complaint." (TFB Ex. 5; TR 39).
Respondent's "Answer" was 64 pages long, and extended his allegations of those
conspiring against him to include his brother, Franklin Zemel, BEKPA, and his then
5
wife, Mindy Zemel, who he indicated were conspiring to destroy his reputation and
familial relationships. (TFB Ex. 5). Following receipt of Respondent's answer, on
October 26, 2010, Ben-Ezra and Katz filed a supplemental written grievance with
the Florida Bar. (TFB Ex. 5; TR 39). The complaint cited Respondent's continued
inappropriate behavior and attached Respondent's proposed Answer to their Motion
for Injunction, as well as an email from Respondent threatening his intent to post
derogatory information regarding the firm and these proceedings on his blog. (TFB
Ex. 5; TR 39).
Throughout these events, Respondent and his brother, Franklin Zemel,
engaged in a string of emails regarding Respondent's mental stability. (TR 144-
145). Franklin Zemel sought to intervene in the situation and attempted to get
Respondent to withdraw his accusations against his former supervisor, Ms. Shacket.
(TFB Ex. 5, Exibit A, pages. 7-12). Respondent did not comply with his brother's
requests. (TFB Ex. 5, Exibit A, pgs. 7-12).
COUNT II
At all times relevant to the actions giving rise to this proceeding, and
simultaneous with the BEKPA action, Respondent was going through contentious
divorce proceedings with his then wife of 23 years, Mindy Zemel. (ROR 10; TFB
Ex. 1; See Zemel v. Zemel, 2010-18388FC04). On June 28, 2010, Mrs. Zemel filed
6
a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage. Ms. Zemel alleged that Respondent was
mentally unstable and requested reliefpertinent to same, based on statements
Respondent made to her via email. (TFB Ex. 1). Such statements included:
. . . You need to file suit first thing tomorrow morning foran emergency temporary guardian of my person andproperty. You also need to obtain an emergencytemporary restraining order to keep me away from thekids. You have no choice. I am forwarding copies of thistext message and my brother's email to the three olderchildren. Don't worry, they will help you. Tell everyonein the community. They will all help you. Don't takechances. Lives may be at stake.
(TFB Ex. 8)(TR 44, 52, 185).
On October 22, 2010, the same day Respondent filed his 64 page answer to
BEKPA's Motion for Injunction in Count I, above, Respondent also filed his
"Motion to Quash Service of Process and to Dismiss the Action" of Mrs. Zemel's
Petition for Dissolution of Marriage. (TFB Ex. 6). For reasons known only to
Respondent, he sent Zukoff a copy of said Motion. (TFB Ex. 6; TR 43). In his
motion Respondent asserted the case ought to be dismissed due to a lack ofproper
service upon an incompetent, and as proof to corroborate his diminished capacity
Respondent cited Mrs. Zemel's accusations. (TFB Ex. 6). Additionally, the Motion
stated:
7
5. As disturbing as [Mrs. Zemel]'s and her attorney'sbehavior is, the court's behavior is significantly muchmore so.
6. To date, I have not appeared at a single hearing beforethis court. How can it be that this court has entered ordersagainst me when the only evidence before it shows that Iam not only crazy and in need of help, but that mychildren are in danger. Doesn't the court look at the courtfile to see what a case is about before it acts?
7. I am sorry to have to say this, however, because of thecourt's horrific and blatantly ignorant behavior which iscausing my children and I to be decimated and, especiallysince this cannot be an isolated incident, the court needsto step down from the bench.
(TR 46, 52). Dismayed and concerned at Respondent's public and unfounded
castigation against the family court judge presiding over Respondent's divorce, and
in an effort to comply with Rule 4-8.3 requiring lawyers to report known
misconduct of other lawyers, Zukoff forwarded this pleading to the Florida Bar
along with an additional grievance against Respondent. (TFB Ex. 6; TR 43).
During its investigation, The Florida Bar discovered that Respondent was
using the statements concerning his mental instability which were contained in his
pleadings and communications for strategic purposes. (TR 53). Respondent was
attempting to goad opposing counsel into invoking the Baker Act or filing a Petition
for Determination of Capacity. (TFB Ex. 8). Respondent viewed the situation as
win-win. IfMrs. Zemel did neither, Respondent could argue that Mrs. Zemel was
8
lying about his mental sanity. (TR 53-56). Alternatively, if Mrs. Zemel chose to
pursue these options, Respondent could prove his mental sanity and prove Ms.
Zemel to be a liar. (TFB Ex. 8; TR 53-56). Indeed, during the Hearing concerning
Respondent's motion to Quash Service of Process and to Dismiss the Action,
Respondent admitted he was seeking an adjudication of incompetency for himself,
and wanted the case thrown out because "[i]f the Court dismisses the proceeding
[Mrs. Zemel] can't refile." (TFB Ex. 7).
Upon Respondent's behavior being made known to the Florida Bar,
Respondent was referred to the Florida Lawyers Assistance program (FLA) for a
psychiatric evaluation. (TFB Ex. 9; TR 61). This evaluation was completed on
April 27, 2011 by Dr. Armand Braun, M.D. (TFB Ex. 9; TFB Ex. 10; TR 63). Upon
completion of his assessment, Dr. Scott Weinstein, FLA's Clinical Director,
reviewed the treatment plan and recommended additional treatment protocols. (TFB
Ex. 9; TR 71, 74). The FLA attempted to reach Respondent prior to filing its report
with the Florida Bar, however, Respondent's whereabouts could not be determined,
and contact could therefore not be made. (TR 77-78). Due to this delay, Dr.
Weinstein's report to the Florida Bar was only sent on September 12, 2012. (TFB
Ex. 9, TR 77-78). The Report indicated that Respondent had symptoms ofAttention
Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), including a significantly limited attention
9
span, as well as moderate to severe "performance based" social anxiety and
recurring episodes of Major Depression. (TFB Ex. 9, 11; TR 63-64). FLA's full
recommendation stated:
The results of the evaluation found Mr. Zemel to beexperiencing difficulties commensurate with someonediagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder,revealing a longstanding pattern of significantly limited:attention span (i.e., staying on task and completion oftasks in a timely manner). When working as lawyer, thiscan lead to significant problems with careless mistakes,procrastination, and time management. This appears to beMr. Zemel's primary problem. Evidence of cognitiverestlessness was observed as well as signs of impulsivity(i.e., easily frustrated and irritability when asked to stopand change direction of focus). In response, it wassuggested to Mr. Zemel that he consider a course ofmedication management as well as supportivepsychotherapy to assist him in managing these potentiallydebilitating symptoms. Additionally, Mr. Zemel wasfound to be manifesting a moderate to severe level ofsocial anxiety. In his case it appeared to be performance-based, not generalized and interestingly only specific tothe type ofperformance environments where he cannotveer away from scripted material. The implications ofsuch a disorder if left untreated could result in conflictswith authority figures such as judges, and a diminishedcapacity to respond effectively to the nuances (i.e.,tactical changes, unforeseen events) often encountered inthe practice of law.
(TFB Ex. 9). Dr. Weinstein stated that FLA could support Respondent in his
treatment plan, however, Respondent had not yet procured assistance from their
office at the time the recommendation was made to the Bar. (TFB Ex. 9; TR 65).
10
Respondent's conduct in the present disciplinary proceeding provided basis
for additional concerns regarding his mental state and present ability to practice
law. Throughout these proceedings Respondent has engaged in paranoid conspiracy
theories. Respondent has accused the Florida Bar of misrepresenting itself on
numerous occasions. For instance, Respondent was offered a plea offer in which he
would receive a public reprimand along with a one year probation, and entry into a
contract with the Florida Lawyers Assistance program (FLA) for monitoring for
compliance with treatment and medications. (TFB Ex.11). Despite his response to
Counsel's email asking for clarification of the deal, Respondent contends that the
Bar never made him an offer; and based on this lack of an offered plea agreement
Respondent alleges the Bar has some mal intent and is conspiring against him.
(TFB Ex. 11; TR 160). Additionally, Respondent claimed the Florida Bar
misrepresented its motives for not pursuing the multiple sworn grievances
Respondent filed against his brother and every attorney associated with BEPKA.
(TR 153-154). Indeed, Respondent stated that upon the filing of these grievances,
the Florida Bar's response was,
'Well, we kind of think you're crazy because of whateverybody's saying, so you know what? We're not goingto investigate.' If the truth ever comes out, and I surehope it does, the Florida Bar is going to have egg all over
11
its face. People literally lost their homes because theFlorida Bar lied . . . .
(TR 153-154). Further, Respondent has demonstrated an inability to understand the
scope and nature of these proceedings, and purpose of same. Respondent has
repeatedly questioned The Florida Bar's authority to file and argue charges against
him, and continues to insist upon the propriety of his conduct. (See generally
Respondent's motions; TR 14-16, 20-2, 33, 48-49, 61).
At the Final Hearing in this case, the Florida Bar argued that Respondent
should either be placed on the inactive list based on mental incapacity unrelated to
misconduct, or in the alternative, Respondent should be found guilty of violating
Rules 3-7.13(Incapacity Not Related to Misconduct), 4-3.3(a)(False Evidence; Duty
to Disclose), 4-8.2(a)(Impugning Qualifications and Integrity of Judges or Other
Officers), 4-8.4(c)(A lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and 4-8.4(d)(A lawyer shall not engage in
conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the
administration ofjustice) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and given a
rehabilitative suspension.
Following presentation of the evidence and argument of counsel at the Final
Hearing, the Referee issued his Report of Referee containing his findings and
recommendations. Specifically the Referee recommended Respondent be found
12
guilty of violating Rule 4-4.2 (Communication with Person Represented by
Counsel), Rule 4-8.4(d) (A lawyer shall not engage in conduct in connection with
the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration ofjustice) as to Count I,
and Rule 4-8.2(a) (Impugning Qualifications and Integrity of Judges or Other
Officers), and Rule 4-8.4(d) (A lawyer shall not engage in conduct in connection
with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration ofjustice) of the
Rules Regulating The Florida Bar as to Count II. The Referee recommended that
Respondent be found not guilty of violating Rules 4-3.3(a) and 4-8.4(c). Based
upon his findings the Referee recommended that Respondent be publicly
reprimanded for his actions, serve one year of probation, and attend a live session of
Practicing with Professionalism (1437R). Additionally, the Referee recommended
Respondent be required to submit to a new psychiatric evaluation and attend
monthly mental health sessions, which would be reported to the Bar.
At the Board of Governors meeting which ended on February 1, 2013, the
Board of Governors directed undersigned counsel to seek review of the Report of
Referee for the limited purpose of asking this Court to direct that any psychiatric
evaluation and any subsequently recommended treatment be conducted under the
auspices of FLA.
13
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The instant appeal is undertaken at the direction of the Board of Governor's
for the limited purpose of asking this Court to alter a provision of the recommended
sanction. This Court should direct that the recommended psychiatric evaluation, as
well as any subsequently recommended treatment, be conducted under the auspices
of Florida Lawyer's Assistance, Inc. Florida Lawyers Assistance was created to
serve this very purpose pursuant to the Rules promulgated by this Honorable Court.
14
ARGUMENT
THIS HONORABLE COURT SHOULD ADOPT THE FINDINGSAND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE REFEREE IN THISMATTER, EXCEPT THIS COURT SHOULD ALTER THERECOMMENDED SANCTION TO DIRECT THAT ANYPSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION AND SUBSEQUENTLYRECOMMENDED TREATMENT BE CONDUCTED UNDER THEAUSPICES OF FLORIDA LAWYERS ASSISTANCE.
The Board of Governors directed undersigned counsel to seek review of the
Report of Referee in this matter for the limited purpose of asking this Court to alter
the recommended sanction. This Court should direct that the recommended
psychological evaluation, and any subsequently recommended treatment, be
conducted under the auspices of Florida Lawyer's Assistance, Inc.
"The Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to regulate...the
discipline of persons admitted [to the practice of law]." Art. V, §15, Fla. Const.
Therefore, "unlike the referee's findings of fact and conclusions as to guilt, the
determination of the appropriate discipline is peculiarly in the province of this
Court's authority." The Florida Bar v. O'Connor, 945 So.2d 1113, 1120 (Fla.
2006). As ultimately it is this Court's responsibility to order the appropriate
punishment, this Court enjoys broad latitude in reviewing a referee's
recommendation. In the instant case, the Referee made sound observations and his
findings of fact and conclusions of law are supported by competent and substantial
15
evidence. Therefore, such findings of fact and conclusions of law should be
adopted by this Court. However, the Florida Bar respectfully requests that this
Court alter one of the provisions of the recommended sanction in order to more
adequately meet the mental health needs of Respondent and to ensure the protection
of the public, and further to provide specific guidance for the means by which the
sanction is effectuated.
The underlying facts and the Respondent's conduct during the instant
disciplinary proceedings demonstrate conclusively the need for Respondent to
undergo further psychological evaluation and treatment for the mental health
conditions affecting his ability to practice law. Therefore, the Referee properly and
appropriately recommended that an evaluation be conducted. However, in his
recommended sanction, the Referee created a treatment plan of his own devise,
which may not be sufficient to meet the needs of Respondent and to protect the
public, and further, the Referee did not indicate the means by which the evaluation
and treatment should be effectuated. The Referee's non-specific recommendation
provides no guidance for how Respondent can comply with the condition, provides
no qualifications nor guidelines for the criteria to be used by Respondent in
selecting a doctor to conduct the initial evaluation or further treatment, and
effectively leaves the means and method of compliance up to Respondent.
16
The Florida Bar respectfully requests this Honorable Court to alter the
recommended sanction to direct that the recommended psychological evaluation, as
well as any subsequently recommended treatment protocols, be conducted under the
auspices of Florida Lawyer's Assistance. Florida Lawyer's Assistance was created
for this very purpose pursuant to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, which were
promulgated by this very Court. Pursuant to Bylaw of the Florida Bar 2-9.11,
entitled "Assistance To Members Suffering From Impairment Related To Chemical
Dependency Or Psychological Problems," the Florida Bar created Florida Lawyer's
Assistance to be a program to identify members who suffer from chemical or
mental impairments that effect their professional performance or their ability to
practice law, and to assist those members in overcoming such chemical dependency
or problems. Florida Lawyer's Assistance is an independent organization that works
closely with the bar, the board of bar examiners, and the court and provides direct
counseling and referral for treatment of members of the bar who are suffering from
chemical or alcoholic dependency and/or mental health issues. As such, Florida
Lawyer's Assistance is uniquely qualified to provide guidance in the selection of an
evaluating professional and to oversee any treatment protocols to meet the specific
needs of lawyers. This alteration to the recommended sanction will satisfy the dual
interests of ensuring that any recommended treatment meets the needs of the
17
Respondent and adequately protects the public, as well as to provide specific
direction for the means by which Respondent should comply with the Court's Order
imposing discipline.
18
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing reasons, The Florida Bar respectfully requests that
this Honorable Court should adopt the findings and recommendations of the
Referee in this matter, except this court should alter the recommended sanction to
direct that any psychological evaluation and subsequently recommended treatment
be conducted under the auspices of Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc.
Jennif R.' F leone Moore, Bar Counsel
19
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original and seven copies of The Florida Bar's
Initial Briefwere sent via U.S. Mail (and a true and correct copy was sent via
electronic mail at [email protected]) to the Honorable Thomas D. Hall, Clerk,
Supreme Court Building, Supreme Court of Florida, 500 South Duval Street,
Tallahassee, Florida 32399; and a true and correct copy was emailed at
[email protected] and mailed to Daniel Joshua Zemel, Respondent, 2075 North
Bay Road, Miami Beach, FL 33140; and emailed at [email protected] to
Kenneth L. Marvin, Staff Counsel, The Florida Bar, 651 E. Jefferson Street,
Tallahassee, Florida 32399; on this 26th day of March, 2013.
Je . Falcone Moore, Bar CounselThe Florida BarMiami Branch Office444 Brickell AvenueRivergate Plaza, Suite M-100Miami, Florida 33131-2404(305) 377-4445Florida Bar No. [email protected]
20
CERTIFICATE OF TYPE, SIZE AND STYLE AND ANTI-VIRUS SCAN
Undersigned counsel does hereby certify that this Brief is submitted in 14point proportionately spaced Times New Roman font, and that this brief has beenfiled by e-mail in accord with the Court's order of October 1, 2004. Undersignedcounsel does hereby further certify that the electronically filed version of this briefhas been scanned and found to be free of viruses, by Norton AntiVirus forWindows.
Jenn Falcone Moore, Bar Counsel
21
8THE FLORIDA BAR
RIVERGATE PLAZA, SUITE M-100
444 BRICKELL AVENUE
JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR. MIAMI, FL 33131-2404 305/377-4445EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WWW.FLORIDABAR.ORG
March 26, 2013
Honorable Thomas D. Hall, ClerkSupreme Court ofFlorida 7500 South Duval Street PTallahassee, Florida 32399 r
RE: The Florida Bar v. Daniel Joshua ZemelSupreme Court Case No. SC12-667The Florida Bar File Nos. 2011-70,471(11L) and 2011-70,487(11L)
Dear Mr. Hall:
Enclosed please find an original and seven copies of The Florida Bar's Initial Brief on Appealregarding the above-referenced matter. In addition, an electronic copy of The Florida Bar'sInitial Brief on Appeal has been emailed on this date to this Honorable Court, as well asRespondent.
Thank you.
JENNIFER R. FALCONE MOOREBar Counsel
JRFM\nfEnclosures
cc: Daniel Joshua Zemel, Respondent (w/ enclosure)
