IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
(Before a Referee)
THE FLORIDA BAR,
Complainant,
Case No.:
SC11-1868
TFB File No. 2011-00,340 (2B)
v.
JANET PITTMAN REED,
Respondent.
_________________________/
CONDITIONAL GUILTY PLEA FOR CONSENT JUDGMENT
COMES NOW, the undersigned respondent, Janet Pittman Reed, and files
this Conditional Guilty Plea pursuant to R. Regulating Fla. Bar 3-7.9.
1.
Respondent is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a member of
The Florida Bar, subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida.
2.
The respondent is acting freely and voluntarily in this matter, and
tenders this Plea without fear or threat of coercion. Respondent is not represented
in this matter.
3.
The disciplinary measures to be imposed upon the respondent are as
follows:
A.
3 year suspension,
B.
Payment of The Florida Bar’s costs.
4.
The following allegations and rules provide the basis for respondent's
guilty plea and for the discipline to be imposed in this matter:
A.
On September 22, 2010, the Disciplinary Hearing Commission of the
North Carolina State Bar entered an order suspending respondent from practicing
1
law in the state of North Carolina for five years. The misconduct upon which the
suspension was based is as follows:
Count I - Jeremy Cox
B.
On or about October 11, 2007, respondent was appointed to represent
Jeremy Cox (hereinafter “Mr. Cox”) in Onslow County District Criminal Court on
multiple traffic offenses including speeding 90 miles per hour in a 45 mile per hour
zone and reckless driving, and speeding 71 miles per hour in a 55 mile per hour
zone while his license was revoked. Respondent was also representing Mr. Cox on
another traffic infraction for unsafe passing.
C.
On or about February 20, 2008, respondent approached the Assistant
District Attorney, Matthew Silva, (hereinafter "ADA Silva") to negotiate a plea on
behalf of Mr. Cox.
D.
An agreement was reached with regard to the first speeding offense,
however, respondent did not mention that her client was also charged with a
second speeding offense, driving with his license revoked and an unsafe passing
violation.
E.
ADA Silva prepared the plea agreement, executed it and gave it to
respondent for her signature. At that time, respondent informed ADA Silva of her
client's unsafe passing violation. ADA Silva agreed to add this violation to the
plea agreement and an additional charge of improper equipment was made in lieu
of unsafe passing.
F.
ADA Silva was still not aware of the second speeding charge and the
driving on a revoked license charge.
G.
Respondent made the agreed additions to the plea agreement,
however, unbeknownst to ADA Silva, she added the charge number of the second
speeding charge and the driving on a revoked license.
2
H.
When ADA Silva reviewed the executed agreement, he noticed the
unauthorized change and immediately notified respondent's practice mentor of
what she had done and to inform him that the plea agreement was no longer valid.
I.
The following day, ADA Silva told the court that the agreement was
no longer valid and that he intended to prosecute Mr. Cox on each charge without
reduction. The court then asked Mr. Cox if he wanted respondent to continue to
represent him, to which he answered no. The court appointed him new counsel.
Count II - Bobby Blakeney, Jr.
J.
In or about April 2008, Bobby Franklin Blakeney, Jr. (hereinafter
“Mr. Blakeney”) hired respondent to represent him in domestic matters including,
but not limited to, divorce.
K.
Respondent filed a complaint on behalf of Mr. Blakeney on or about
April 15, 2008. Mr. Blakeney's wife filed a similar action in California.
L.
After discussion between the California and North Carolina courts, it
was determined that the issue of custody would properly be heard in North
Carolina and either state could hear the other issues. Respondent calendared the
issues of temporary custody, visitation and summer vacation for July 21, 2008.
M.
Under the local Rules of Court for Onslow County, “all actions
involving unresolved, contested or temporary issues, or change of custody and
visitation of a minor child shall be ordered to mandatory mediation on such issues
prior to trial” unless exempted by the court.
N.
Respondent filed for an exemption by a Motion and Order to waive
custody mediation on or about June 25, 2008. In that motion, respondent falsely
stated that Mr. Blakeney lived more than 50 miles from court, a distance
considered good cause for an exemption in the discretion of the court.
3
O.
Respondent also falsely stated that the opposing party was unwilling
to participate in any meaningful contact with the minor child, when, in fact, the
child was residing with the wife in California at the time.
P.
Mr. Blakeney brought these misstatements to respondent's attention,
but she advised him to sign the motion, even though she knew the statements were
false.
Count III - Richard J. Ogniewski
Q.
Richard Ogniewski (hereinafter “Mr. Ogniewski”) hired respondent to
represent him in a matter entitled Kristie K. Ogniewski vs. Richard Ogniewski.
Kristie Ogniewski (hereinafter “Ms. Ogniewski”) was represented by Timothy
Oswalt (hereinafter “Mr. Oswalt”).
R.
On March 5, 2009, Mr. Oswalt contacted respondent requesting dates
to depose Mr. Ogniewski. Respondent's paralegal responded that April 8, 2009,
would be an acceptable date to depose Mr. Ogniewski.
S.
On March 25, 2009, Mr. Oswalt noticed Mr. Ogniewski, through
respondent, of his intention to depose him on April 8, 2009.
T.
On March 31, 2009, in violation of the local rule requiring calendar
requests to be submitted at least 10 days prior to the beginning of session,
respondent filed calendar requests for April 7, 2009 and April 8, 2009, the day
before and the day of the scheduled deposition, asking for all motions to be heard.
At the time these requests were made, the only pending motion was a motion to
modify post separation support.
U.
On April 1, 2009, respondent filed a motion to continue deposition
and an amended motion to continue deposition with no corresponding calendar
request. On April 8, 2009, the judge refused to hear any of respondent's motions.
V.
Respondent and Mr. Ogniewski presented at Mr. Oswalt's office the
afternoon of April 8, 2009, for the taking of Mr. Ogniewski's deposition. Prior to
4
the deposition, respondent agreed to standard stipulations which included waiving
objection to the notice of taking deposition or as to the time and place thereof.
W.
Shortly after the deposition began, it was unilaterally terminated by
respondent.
X.
In a motion to terminate deposition, filed the next day, respondent
stated, among other things, that the questions were “not part of any prior discovery
question” and that “the defendant or defendant's counsel was not put on notice as
to the line of questions to be presented”.
Y.
Ms. Ogniewski incurred attorney's fees as well as expenses and
personal inconvenience as a result of respondent's termination of the deposition
without justification.
Z.
On April 30, 2009, respondent's motion to terminate deposition was
denied and she was ordered to pay the cost of the partial deposition and Ms.
Ogniewski's attorney's fees.
5.
By reason of the foregoing, respondent violated Rules 1.1
(competence), 1.2(d) (counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that
the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent), 3.3(Candor Toward the Tribunal),
3.4(d)(2) 3.4(d) (In pretrial procedure, (2) fail to make a reasonably diligent effort
to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party) and
8.4(c)(conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation) and (d)
(conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) of the Rules of Professional
Conduct of the North Carolina State Bar.
6.
The Florida Bar has approved this proposed plea in the manner
required by Rule 3-7.9.
7.
If this plea is not finally approved by the referee and the Supreme
Court of Florida, then it shall be of no effect and may not be used by the parties in
any way.
5
8.
If this plea is approved, then the respondent agrees to pay all
reasonable costs associated with this case pursuant to R. Regulating Fla. Bar 37.6(q) in the amount of $1,250. These costs are due within 30 days of the court
order. Respondent agrees that if the costs are not paid within 30 days of this
court's order becoming final, the respondent shall pay interest on any unpaid costs
at the statutory rate. Respondent further agrees not to attempt to discharge the
obligation for payment of the Bar's costs in any future proceedings, including but
not limited to, a petition for bankruptcy. Respondent shall be deemed delinquent
and ineligible to practice law pursuant to R. Regulating Fla. Bar 1.36 if the cost
judgment is not satisfied within 30 days of the final court order, unless deferred by
the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar.
8.
The respondent acknowledges the obligation to pay the costs of this
proceeding and that payment is evidence of strict compliance with the conditions
of any disciplinary order or agreement, and is also evidence of good faith and fiscal
responsibility.
Respondent understands that failure to pay the costs of this
proceeding will reflect adversely on any reinstatement proceedings or any other bar
disciplinary matter in which the respondent is involved.
9.
This Conditional Guilty Plea for Consent Judgment fully complies
with all requirements of The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.
______________________________
Janet Pittman Reed
PO Box 1439
Jacksonville, NC 28541-1439
Florida Bar No. 752436
6
______________________________
Allison Carden Sackett, Bar Counsel
The Florida Bar
651 East Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300
(850) 561-5845
Florida Bar No. 582700
7
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
(Before a Referee)
THE FLORIDA BAR,
Complainant,
SC File No.: SC11-1868
v.
TFB File No. 2011-00,340 (2B)
JANET PITTMAN REED,
Respondent.
___________________________________/
STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT
The Florida Bar and the Respondent, Janet Pittman Reed, hereby stipulate to
the entry of a Consent Judgment and the Report of Referee in the above-referenced
case based upon the Conditional Guilty Plea and Consent Judgment entered into by
the parties.
The parties further stipulate to the entry of the Consent Judgment and the
Report of Referee and the imposition of the referenced discipline without further
notice of hearing.
______________________________
Allison Carden Sackett, Bar Counsel
The Florida Bar
651 East Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300
Florida Bar No. 582700
_________________________________
Janet Pittman Reed
PO Box 1439
Jacksonville, NC 28541-1439
Florida Bar No. 752436
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing Stipulation for Entry
of Consent Judgment has been furnished by regular U.S. mail to Honorable James
C. Hankinson, Leon County Courthouse, 301 South Monroe Street, 365F,
Tallahassee, FL 32301 and a true and correct copy has been furnished to Janet
Pittman Reed, PO Box 1439, Jacksonville, NC 28541-1439 and Staff Counsel, The
Florida Bar, 651 E. Jefferson Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399 on this ____ day of
_________________________, 2012.
______________________________
Allison Carden Sackett, Bar Counsel
2