STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SCOTT WILLIAM KATZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 87-2544

) FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, William J. Kendrick, held a public hearing in the above-styled case on July 29, 1987, in West Palm Beach, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Scott William Katz, pro se

361 Midpines Road

Palm Springs, Florida 33461

For Respondent: Lawrence S. Gendzier, Esquire

Assistant Attorney General Florida Real Estate Commission

400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

At issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman should be approved.

At hearing, Petitioner testified on his own behalf, and Petitioner's exhibits 1 and 2 were received into evidence. Respondent called no witnesses, but its exhibit 1 was received into evidence.

Petitioner requested an immediate ruling on his request for licensure, and waived his right to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Respondent acceded to Petitioner's request, and waived its right to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner, Scott William Katz (Katz), applied to Respondent, Florida Real Estate commission (Commission), for licensure as a real estate salesman. By letter of June 5, 1987, the Commission advised Katz that his application was

   denied because he had been disbarred from the Florida Bar Association and the Oklahoma Bar Association. Katz filed a timely request for formal hearing to contest the Commission's action.

   
   

2. The proof established that by order of the Supreme Court of the State of Florida in The Florida Bar v. Katz, 491 So.2d 1101 (Fla. 1986), Katz was disbarred from the practice of law. The Court's opinion reads, in pertinent part:

   
   

   In Count I, the Bar charged respondent with violating several disciplinary rules pertaining to conflicts of interest and secrets of clients. Initially, respondent represented a wife in a dissolution of marriage action. He obtained a final judgment on her behalf which provided for child support as well as other relief.

   Respondent continued to represent the wife, filing a motion to modify the final judgment and a motion for contempt wherein various arrearages in child support were alleged.

   Approximately two years later, respondent commenced proceedings against his former client on behalf of her ex-husband, seeking a reduction in child support payments. These payments were part of the very relief sought and obtained by respondent on behalf of the wife in the original dissolution proceedings. Respondent's former client did not consent to respondent's representation of her former husband and indicated that such consent would not have been given if sought by respondent. In Count II, the Bar charged that respondent coerced an agreement from a former client to pay damages on a claim which had no legal basis....

   * * *

   In Count III, the Bar charged that respondent misrepresented material facts in a sworn pleading in order to obtain the relief sought. Cadet Joseph K. Barbara had retained respondent when he was dismissed from West Point. Respondent filed a sworn motion before a federal court requesting the issuance of a temporary order restraining West Point from dismissing the cadet. The pleading contained the representation that West Point had no objection to the issuance of such an order. The federal judge entered the order on the basis of respondent's misrepresentation of the position of the West Point authorities. Upon finding respondent guilty of all charges, the referee recommended disbarment, stating:

   1. The cumulative guilt of the three different transgressions indicated a gross callousness and indifference to the entire

      Code of Professional Responsibility.

   2. In Count I, he must be presumed to have divulged secrets of his client's to the client's adversary.

   3. In Count II, he outrageously and successfully pressured his client to wrongfully agree to pay him money

      when his client had no legal obligation to do so. Certainly moral extortion if nothing else.

   4. He deliberately lied under oath to a Federal Judge who relied upon such falsehood in issuing the order. Certainly a lawyer can do little more culpable and destructive to the court system. The example set by Respondent must be dealt with harshly to prevent those considering such conduct in the future.

      
      

      Accordingly, the Court concluded:

      
      

      We approve the referee's findings of guilt on Count I of the Bar's complaint and find that respondent violated disciplinary Rule 1- 102(A)(5)(a lawyer shall not engage in conduct contrary to the administration of justice); Disciplinary Rule 4-101(A) and (B) (a lawyer shall not knowingly use a client's confidence or secret to the advantage of another without full disclosure), Disciplinary Rule 5-105(A) and (B)(a lawyer shall decline proffered employment if a client will be or is likely to be adversely affected), and Disciplinary Rule 9-101 (a lawyer shall avoid even the appearance of impropriety).

      
      

      We approve the referee's findings of guilt on Count II and find that respondent violated Florida Bar Integration Rule, article XI, Rule 11.02(3)(a) prohibiting conduct contrary to honesty, justice, or good morals.

      
      

      We approve the referee's findings of guilt on Count III, finding that respondent violated Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(1)(a lawyer shall not violate a discipline rule); Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(3)(a lawyer shall not engage

      in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude); Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(4)(a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); Disciplinary Rule l-

      102 (A)(5)(a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice); Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(6)(a lawyer shall not engage in any

      conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law); Disciplinary Rule 7-102(A)(5)(a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of law or fact in representing a client); and Florida Bar Integration Rules 11.02(3)(a) and (b)(a lawyer shall not commit acts contrary to honesty, justice, good morals, or commit a crime).

      
      

      Predicated on his disbarment from the Florida Bar Association Katz was, effective February 19, 1987, disbarred from the Oklahoma Bar Association.

      
      

3. At hearing, Katz offered no proof of subsequent good conduct and reputation, or any other reason sufficient to demonstrate that the interests of the public and investors would not likely be endangered by the granting of registration.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

4. The Division of Administrative Hearings has juris- diction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings.

   
   

5. Pertinent to this case, Section 475.17(1), Florida Statutes, provides:

   
   

   An applicant for licensure who is a natural person shall be 18 years of age, a bona fide resident of the state, honest, truthful, trustworthy, and of good character and shall have a good reputation for fair dealing. An applicant for an active broker's license or a salesman's license shall be competent and qualified to make real estate transactions and conduct negotiations there for with safety to investors and to those with whom he may undertake a relationship of trust and confidence. If the applicant has been denied registration or a license or has been disbarred, or his registration or license to practice or conduct any regulated profession, business, or vocation has been revoked or suspended, by this or any other state, any nation, or any possession or district of the United States, or any court or lawful agency thereof, because of any conduct or practices which would have warranted a like result under this chapter, or if the applicant has been guilty of conduct or practices in this state or elsewhere which would have been grounds for revoking or suspending his license under this chapter had the applicant then been registered, the applicant shall be deemed not to be qualified unless, because of lapse of time and subsequent good conduct and reputation, or other reason deemed sufficient, it appears to the commission that the interest of the public and investors will

   not likely be endangered by the granting of registration. (Emphasis added.)

   
   

6. Statutory grounds for revoking or suspending a license under Chapter

   475 include the following provisions of Sections 475.25(1), Florida Statutes:

   
   

   (b) Has been guilty of fraud, misrepre- sentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in any business transaction in this state or any other state, nation, or territory....

   
   

7. Katz' disbarment from the Florida Bar Association and Oklahoma Bar Association was predicated on conduct or practices which would have warranted the revocation or suspension of his license had he then been registered with the Commission. Accordingly, since there is no proof of subsequent good conduct and reputation, or any other reason sufficient to demonstrate that the interest of the public and investors would not likely be endangered by the granting of registration, Katz has failed to demonstrate his entitlement to licensure.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Petitioner, Scott William Katz, for

licensure as a real estate salesman be DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida.

WILLIAM J. KENDRICK

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 1987.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Scott William Katz

361 Midpines Road

Palm Springs, Florida 33461

Lawrence S. Gendzier, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Florida Real Estate Commission

400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802

Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional

Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750

Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel

Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750

Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate

400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802

Docket for Case No: 87-002544

Orders for Case No: 87-002544