A Biblical, Spiritual Journey

The Florida Supreme Court has ordered a 91-day rehabilitative suspension of an attorney, rejected the two year suspension sought by the Bar and the 90-day non-rehabilitative suspension recommended by the referee

Jacobs, a veteran foreclosure defense attorney, has developed a set of legal theories that he has often argued on behalf of clients. His theories are based on the premise that a party seeking to foreclose on a defaulted mortgage should not be able to collect an equitable remedy if it came to the court with unclean hands. More specifically, Jacobs’ theory is that in cases where a homeowner who borrowed money to purchase a home is now in default on payments, the holder of the note should not be allowed to enforce the note or foreclose on the mortgage if any faulty or defective assignments occurred after the closing on the note and mortgage.

Relevant to this case, Jacobs attempted to assert his theory in three separate foreclosure proceedings below, but his arguments were rejected. Jacobs then filed in those cases motions that included negative comments and accusations about courts and specific judges. This resulted in the Bar filing a three-count complaint against Jacobs alleging that he had impugned the qualifications or integrity of members of the judiciary. The Bar complaint was referred to a referee, who held hearings on both guilt and discipline and then submitted an amended report with the following findings and recommendations.

From a motion for rehearing en banc

This Court’s insistence on ignoring established Florida Supreme Court law to benefit bad corporate citizens is certain to cause chaos.
. . . .
Ownership controls the right to enforce the mortgage. This Court is acting illegally by instructing the law is otherwise.
. . . .
This is a biblical, spiritual journey for me. I have faith I will be protected because I am acting so clearly within the law and this Honorable Court is not.
. . . .
Banks have all the resources to do it right but made business decisions to do it fraudulently. It’s as if they knew the Courts would always let them get away with it. .. . I call those judges traitors to the constitution.
. . . .
I’ve had to warn [clients] this broken system is riddled with fraud and perjury. The judges decide the rule of law, and whether any rule of law exists. Maybe the rule of law only applies to the rest of us.
. . . .
Any court that protects the monopoly over the rule of law is a traitor to the constitution and should be tried for treason.

Statements made in two other pleadings also drew charges.

As to the charges

Ultimately, the record clearly supports the referee’s finding that Jacobs made statements in three separate legal proceedings that impugned the integrity of members of the judiciary, and Jacobs has failed to show that he had an objectively reasonable factual basis for making the statements. Because the record evidence does not clearly contradict the referee’s recommendation that Jacobs be found guilty of three violations of Bar Rule 4-8.2(a), we approve the referee’s findings of fact and recommendations as to guilt.

Sanction

we find that the circumstances of this case, including the relevant aggravation and mitigation, require that Jacobs demonstrate rehabilitation before he is readmitted, but we find that a two-year suspension is inappropriate in light of Jacobs’ absence of previous disciplinary offenses. We therefore reject the referee’s recommended 90-day non-rehabilitative suspension and instead impose a 91-day rehabilitative suspension.

(Mike Frisch)