From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Florida Bar v. Kivisto

Supreme Court of Florida
May 20, 2010
37 So. 3d 849 (Fla. 2010)

Opinion

Case No. SC07-2281.

May 20, 2010.

Lower Tribunal No(s). 2006-50,163(15E).


Respondent's motion filed April 9, 2009, for leave to file a reply to the Bar's response to Respondent's motion to dismiss is hereby granted and said reply was filed with the Court on April 9, 2009.

Respondent's motion filed March 17, 2009, to dismiss the report of referee is hereby denied.

The Florida Bar is directed to file an index to the record, serve a copy on Respondent, and make the record available to Respondent, within twenty days from the date of this order.

The Florida Bar's motion to strike filed April 1, 2009, is granted and sections I and II of Respondent's petition for review and appendix to the petition are hereby stricken.

Respondent's motion filed May 6, 2009, for leave to file a reply to the Bar's response to Respondent's motion to dismiss is granted and said reply was filed with this Court on May 6, 2009.

Respondent's motion filed April 17, 2009, to dismiss The Florida Bar's complaint, the referee's judgment of default, and the report of the referee, is hereby denied without prejudice for Respondent to address these issues in an initial brief.

Respondent's motions filed April 9, 2009, for extension of time to file an initial brief and to toll the time for filing of the brief are granted. Respondent is hereby allowed to and including thirty-five days from the date of this order in which to file an initial brief on the merits. If the Court has not received Respondent's initial brief on the merits by that date, which brief shall be in compliance with Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 3-7.7(c) (Procedure for Review), Respondent's petition for review could be subject to dismissal. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.410 (Sanctions); Fla. Bar v. Akpodiete, SC06-152 (Fla. May 14, 2007); Fla. Bar v. Adams, SC05-1149 (Fla. May 14, 2007); Fla. Bar v. Winegeart, SC06-885 (Fla. April 24, 2007). Failure to file a proper initial brief in accordance with the terms of this order could result in dismissal of the petition for review and approval of the referee's recommendation. Dismissal of the petition for review is not subject to reinstatement. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME WILL BE GRANTED TO RESPONDENT FOR THE FILING OF THE INITIAL BRIEF ON THE MERITS. All other times will be extended accordingly.

Per this Court's Administrative Order In Re: Mandatory Submission of Electronic Copies of Documents, AOSC04-84, dated September 13, 2004, counsel are directed to transmit a copy of all briefs in an electronic format as required by the provisions of that order.

Respondent's remaining motions for extensions of time, tolling, or stay, filed April 17, 2009, May 13, 2009, June 15, 2009, August 8, 2009, October 22, 2009, and March 24, 2010, are hereby denied.

Respondent filed a petition for writ of mandamus on January 21, 2010. Because he has failed to show a clear legal right to the relief requested, he is not entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is hereby denied. See Huffman v. State, 813 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla. 2000).

Respondent's request filed April 22, 2010, for this Court to refer alleged disciplinary matters to an independent prosecutor is denied.

All other pending motions and requests for relief are hereby denied.

On the Court's own motion, Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law until further order of this Court, effective thirty days from the date of this order so that Respondent can close out his practice and protect the interests of existing clients. If Respondent notifies this Court in writing that he is no longer practicing and does not need the thirty days to protect existing clients, the Court will enter an order making the suspension effective immediately. Respondent shall accept no new business from the date this order is filed until he is reinstated.

Not final until time expires to file motion for rehearing, and if filed, determined. The filing of a motion for rehearing shall not alter the effective date of this suspension.

QUINCE, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Florida Bar v. Kivisto

Supreme Court of Florida
May 20, 2010
37 So. 3d 849 (Fla. 2010)
Case details for

Florida Bar v. Kivisto

Case Details

Full title:THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant(s) v. JUSSI KUSTAA KIVISTO, Respondent(s)

Court:Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: May 20, 2010

Citations

37 So. 3d 849 (Fla. 2010)

Citing Cases

Florida Bar v. Kivisto

On May 20, 2010, the Court issued an order specifically informing Kivisto that no further extensions of time…