Florida Attorney Disbarred For Trading Sex For Fees
Posted on Friday, 1 of May , 2009 at 7:36 pm
TALLAHASSEE—Panama City attorney James Harvey Tipler was disbarred Thursday by the Florida Supreme Court for multiple violations and unethical conduct including trading sex for attorney fees.
Tipler, 58, also practiced in Alabama. The court reviewed referees’ reports from three Florida Bar discipline cases which recommended that Tipler be found guilty of various acts of professional misconduct and subjected to various sanctions, including disbarment.
In one case, the referee had found that Tipler represented a client, an 18-year-old mother, in Bay County, Florida, on a charge of aggravated assault. Tipler charged his client a fee of $2,300 and entered into a fee agreement with her that allowed a “credit of $200 for each time she engaged in sex with Respondent” and a “$400 credit if she arranged for other females to have sex with him.”
For his misdeeds, Tipler was charged with racketeering and four counts of prostitution. He ultimately pleaded guilty to one count of solicitation of prostitution.
The Florida Bar filed a complaint against Tipler, and the matter was stayed pending the resolution of a disciplinary case in Alabama arising out of the same incident. Tipler admitted that the agreement existed and that he engaged in sex with his client and another woman in exchange for credits toward the amount the client owed Tipler in attorney fees. Tipler also admitted that his actions were morally and ethically wrong.
After the disciplinary case worked its way through the three levels in the Alabama disciplinary system, the Supreme Court of Alabama suspended Tipler for 15 months. Tipler failed to file a copy of the suspension order with this Court within 30 days of the effective date of the suspension. Nevertheless, after the matter in Alabama was completed, The Florida Bar filed an amended complaint and moved for summary judgment. The referee granted summary judgment in favor of the Bar.
In another matter, the referee found that in Alabama, Tipler represented a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case arising out of a patient’s death. Tipler attempted to submit into evidence a videotape depicting the patient on the day before the surgery that allegedly resulted in his death. To authenticate the tape, Tipler questioned the patient’s son as to whether the tape was accurate. The videotape Tipler attempted to submit was edited from the original version to delete or move scenes that would have been harmful to the plaintiff’s case. Further, the patient’s son had never viewed the edited tape and, thus, unknowingly gave false answers concerning the authenticity of the tape during Tipler’s questioning.
Upon objection by the defense, the trial court conducted an inquiry and disallowed the entry of either the original or edited tape. Additionally, based on Tipler’s answers to questions posed to him during the inquiry, the trial court held Tipler in criminal contempt after a show-cause hearing. A grand jury indicted Tipler for perjury, a first-degree felony. Tipler eventually pleaded guilty to interference with judicial proceedings, a misdemeanor.
After a successful first appeal by Tipler within the Alabama disciplinary system, the Supreme Court of Alabama ultimately determined that Tipler’s conviction was a “serious crime” and reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Thereafter, Tipler was suspended for 120 days in Alabama. Tipler failed to file a copy of the suspension order with this Court within 30 days of the effective date of the Alabama suspension. Nevertheless, the Bar filed a complaint against Tipler. Tipler did not file an answer to the complaint or respond to the Bar’s requests for admission. The Bar moved for summary judgment, and Tipler eventually consented to summary judgment on guilt. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted on all the factual allegations and rule violations
In addition to his Alabama disciplinary proceedings, Tipler has disciplinary proceedings pending in California. Tipler testified before the referee that a stipulation submitted to the referee and entered into evidence was a final stipulation with the State Bar of California.
In fact, the stipulation was not final. Rather, Tipler was referred to California’s Alternate Discipline Program (ADP) by the disciplinary judge. The disciplinary judge noted that if Tipler was not accepted into the ADP, the stipulation would be final, subject to the approval of the California Supreme Court. At the time of the proceedings before the referee, the California case was pending before the ADP judge. Hence, there was not yet a final disposition in the California proceedings.
In the third matter, the referee found seven instances of misconduct, wherein Tipler misused over $57,000 in funds received from various clients and failed to diligently prosecute the clients’ cases or even communicate with the clients. The case types ranged from dissolution of marriage to real estate to copyright infringement.
In addition, Tipler secured fees based on intentional misrepresentation and fraud. In most of the cases, Tipler charged an excessive fee, failed to comply with the Bar rules governing trust accounts, and failed to protect the clients’ interests by refunding unearned fees.
Further, Tipler committed conversion and criminal theft in many of the instances. In one instance, Tipler labored under a conflict of interest. In some instances, Tipler failed to respond to inquiry letters sent by the Bar to his record address.
In the court’s unanimous decision, Chief Justice Peggy Quince opined that “He satisfied his own sexual appetite with a client as a sex-for-fees arrangement. He altered evidence and caused a witness to unknowingly give false testimony. He has charged his clients excessive fees and stolen their money. He has failed to maintain a trust account. He has broken public confidence in the profession of the practice of law by neglecting his clients and failing to prosecute their cases. He has prejudiced the administration of justice by misrepresenting facts to multiple courts. And, through the disciplinary process in these cases, he has been dilatory, deceitful and evasive.”
Quince wrote that while the court questions “whether Tipler is truly amenable to rehabilitation,” the justices took into account the mitigating factors in his case, including emotional problems and a mental impairment, and chose not to disbar him permanently. He can reapply after a period of time.
The opinion was sent to Tipler in Beverly Hills, Calif. http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2009/sc03-149.pdf 5-1-09
- Add this post to
- Del.icio.us -
- Meneame -
- Digg
COPYRIGHT 2009 - NORTH COUNTRY GAZETTE All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the express written permission of the publisher.
