More Than an Oversight

The Florida Supreme Court has disbarred an attorney for misconduct in a judicial election

We have for review a referee’s report recommending that Respondent, Miguel Fernando Mirabal, be found guilty of professional misconduct in violation of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (rules) for repeatedly certifying as correct campaign finance reports he knew were false, making material misrepresentations and omissions in his application to fill a judicial vacancy with the Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC), and for his misconduct during these disciplinary proceedings.  As a sanction for his misconduct, the referee recommends that we disbar Mirabal from the practice of law in Florida.

Mirabal challenges the referee’s report. He admits that he made “mistakes” in his pursuit of judicial office but maintains that his conduct was entirely unintentional. He also argues that disbarment is too harsh a sanction in this case, and that if any disciplinary action is warranted against him, we should impose no more than a lengthy suspension. We reject these arguments and approve the referee’s factual findings and recommendations as to guilt, except for the recommendations of guilt as to rules 4-8.1(a), 4-8.2(b), and Canon 7 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which we disapprove. We also approve the referee’s recommended sanction and disbar Mirabal from the practice of law in Florida.

Referee report

The referee ultimately found that the errors in Mirabal’s campaign finance reports were too numerous and far too politically advantageous to be a mere accident. He concluded that Mirabal knowingly and repeatedly certified the over-inflated numbers in his campaign finance reports as accurate, allowing them to go uncorrected during the period when other candidates could enter the group 43 race for judicial office.

In an application for a county judgeship

In answering question 38, Mirabal failed to list six lawsuits in which he was a party. Mirabal claimed that he filled out the application from memory, and that the cases were negligently omitted from his application. The referee found Mirabal’s explanation that he simply “forgot” about the six cases was not credible, particularly given that the omitted lawsuits contained negative comments and findings about Mirabal that would cause the [Judicial Nominating Commission] to look unfavorably on his application.

Another question

The referee found that Mirabal intentionally omitted the FEC consent order and pending Bar investigation from his JNC application. He determined that the existence of an investigation by the Bar is simply too profound a life event to have been accidentally omitted from an application that clearly and directly asks whether you are presently under investigation for a breach of ethics or unprofessional conduct. He, likewise, determined that Mirabal could not have accidently failed to disclose the FEC consent order entered just six weeks earlier when the question clearly directed him to disclose such an order.

The court found misconduct in response to the bar investigation

In the end, Mirabal exhibited basic, fundamental dishonesty with his conduct in this case, and we have repeatedly made plain that such a serious flaw “cannot be tolerated by a profession that relies on the truthfulness of its members.” Fla. Bar v. Schwartz, 334 So. 3d 298, 303 (Fla. 2022) (quoting Fla. Bar v. Berthiaume, 78 So. 3d 503, 510 (Fla. 2011)). We, accordingly, approve the referee’s recommended discipline and disbar Mirabal from the practice of law in Florida.

(Mike Frisch)