Originally Posted - September 15, 2006

return home

PINELLAS COUNTY---How do you spell non-compliance?

Tampa attorney Mark Adams says in three words---The Florida Bar.

And he says the The Florida Bar is violating his due process rights by refusing to allow a complete record on which an appeal of his disbarment determination can be decided.

Adams, like many people, believes that the rules and law are applicable to all, including judges, court clerks and others in the justice system---particularly The Florida Bar.

He challenged the system, trying to make it fair, just, honest and accountable.

And the system retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment rights.

Now The Florida Bar calls him a "danger to the public and judiciary" and has been trying since earlier this year to suspend his license to practice law while the Florida Supreme Court considers a finding by referee Judge Gregory Holder, Hillsborough County Circuit Court Judge, to permanently disbar him.

Mark Adams, 42 (left), married, with two children, is in the middle of one of the most egregious cases of legal abuse seen in Pinellas County and is obviously being penalized for having dared to utter the words "judicial corruption", especially since his allegations focused on the politically entrenched law firm of Republican magnate and fundraiser Anthony Battaglia, and Pinellas County Circuit Court Judge Crockett Farnell (right).

Farnell, whose wife Dee Anna Farnell is the district administrative judge for the Sixth Circuit, teamed up with Battaglia's law firm, Battaglia, Ross, Dicus and Wein of St. Petersburg to bring contempt charges against Adams. Those charges were dismissed last November.

Farnell decided not to seek reelection and will leave the bench at the end of this year.

Adams is currently facing disbarment as the result of a grievance filed against him in Florida Supreme Court by The Florida Bar as the result of complaints filed against him by Farnell and Battaglia.

Adams said he did nothing wrong, simply exercised his free speech rights guaranteed him by the Constitution to criticize a judge and the Battaglia firm.

It's the position of The Florida Bar, supported by Judge Holder who's seeking a federal judgeship, that Adams lacks the legal knowledge and skill to practice law and poses a danger to the public.

Adams stood trial in early December on the charges before Holder, himself no stranger to controversy involving judicial corruption, having faced charges last year before Florida's Judicial Qualification Commission for plagiarism. He was eventually cleared following trial and is now seeking to have the state reimburse him for an unprecedented amount of legal fees.

Following two days of testimony, Holder reserved decision and on Dec. 22, he issued his recommendation that Adams be permanently disbarred.

The referee's report has been sent to the Florida Supreme Court for a final determination but in the interim, the Bar has moved for an immediate interim suspension order which Adams is opposing, saying there's no basis in law for it. Petition For Interim Suspension -PDF File

Now Adams says that The Florida Bar isn't complying with the rules of procedure pertaining to disciplinary actions and he's filed an action to attempt to enforce the duties of the Bar clerk and require compliance with the rules of procedure applicable to his disciplinary proceeding. Motion To Require Compliance - PDF File

In April, he filed a petition to review Holder's report. On May 1, he served his directions to the clerk and sent a letter to Jodi A. Thompson, assistant staff counsel for The Florida Bar, requesting preparation of the index to the record of the proceedings before the referee, requesting incorporation in the record as well as making other requests.

He says that on May 15, the Bar filed a letter from Thompson as it response, saying that "the Bar rules do not required the record of proceedings to be numbered" but Adams says Thompson provided no authority to support her position. In addition, he says Thompson's letter statesdthat Judge Holder did not transmit the record to the Bar and that he should contact the Clerk of this Court regarding the record.

Adams filed a motion on May 15 for permission to exceed the number of pages allowed for his response brief and to enforce the duties of the clerk and the following day, the clerk of the court denied his motion although the Bar hadn't filed any response.

He says that as a result of the "unusual nature and rapidity" of the decision and his previous experiences with the clerk of the Second District Court of Appeal of Florida in issuing orders without the concurrence of two judges as required, he visited the clerk's office to review the case file on June 14.

He says the clerk refused to allow him to inspect the justices' notes in the red folder in this case file, so he filed a letter requesting that he be allowed to inspect the entire case file.

On June 14, he says that he learned the case file provided for review by the court clerk didn't contain all of the documents required to be included. Missing were the transcripts of the trial and sentencing hearing, motions filed in the hearing before Holder and the orders issued as well as exhibits he had filed. He then served a motion on June 14 seeking to require the Bar to comply with the procedural rules. The court clerk issued an order on Aug. 23. denying his motion.

On June 21, an amicus motion to inspect the complete case file was filed by Gordon Wayne Watts. On Aug. 23, the court clerk denied the request, in essence refusing to comply with the established rules.

Adams says that on about July 7, the court clerk then sent him a letter denying his request to inspect the justices' notes, explaining that some of the records missing from the case file were stored in an exhibit room in the court's sub-basement.

Adams argued that due process requires preparation of the record and provides the procedure for the review of reports and judgments issued by a referee in disciplinary proceedings.

Adams maintains that the Bar is not complying with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. He says he has found not provisions which would allow The Florida Bar to prepare an incomplete record for review. He says the according to established rules, the proceeding can't be determined because of the incomplete record and he hasn't been given an opportunity to supplement the record so that his appeal of the finding of disbarment can be decided on its merits.

In his filing, he maintains that The Florida Bar is denying his due process rights by failing to provide a complete record for his appeal and in essence, unconstitutionally stymieing his appeal.

Adams says that a letter from the court clerk indicates that some documents are in an exhibit room rather than being included in the case file and that this was not brought to the his attention until almost a month after he drove for over 10 hours in order to review this case file.

Adams is seeking an order requiring the clerk of The Florida Bar to prepare the record in accordance with the established rules of procedure and to allow him to supplement it if it is found to lack documents related to the proceeding.

If The Florida Bar doesn't comply with the established rules, he's asking the Supreme Court to dismiss the disciplinary action due to the Bar's misconduct, their repeated efforts to obstruct preparation of the record for the action, their repeated efforts to deny him due process, the Bar's repeated efforts to mislead the court and Holder's failure to comply with the rules in regard to the case record.

For other articles regarding the Mark Adams case, go to the site map at www.northcountrygazette.org and enter Mark Adams in the search bar.
9-15-06

© 2006 North Country Gazette