Upload
david-arthur-walters
View
266
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
1/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
2/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
3/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
4/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
5/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
6/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
7/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
8/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
9/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
10/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
11/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
12/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
13/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
14/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
15/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
16/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
17/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
18/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
19/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
20/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
21/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
22/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
23/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
24/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
25/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
26/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
27/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
28/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
29/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
30/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
31/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
32/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
33/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
34/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
35/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
36/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
37/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
38/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
39/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
40/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
41/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
42/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
43/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
44/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
45/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
46/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
47/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
48/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
49/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
50/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
51/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
52/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
53/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
54/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
55/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
56/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
57/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
58/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
59/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
60/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
61/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
62/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
63/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
64/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
65/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
66/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
67/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
68/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
69/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
70/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
71/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
72/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
73/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
74/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
75/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
76/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
77/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
78/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
79/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
80/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
81/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
82/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
83/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
84/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
85/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
86/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
87/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
88/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
89/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
90/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
91/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
92/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
93/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
94/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
95/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
96/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
97/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
98/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
99/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
100/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
101/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
102/114
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
103/114
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: _________________________
DAVID JOHNSON andJANE JOHNSON,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ALLEN H. LIBOW, ESQMELISSA T. LIBOW, and
LIBOW & SHAHEEN, LLP,a Florida Limited Liability Partnership,et al ,
Defendants.________________________/
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, DAVID JOHNSON and JANE JOHNSON, sue Defendants, ALLEN H.
LIBOW and MELISSA T. LIBOW and state:
1. This is an action for malicious prosecution, conspiracy to commit malicious
prosecution, and abuse of process, in excess of $15,000.00.
2. Plaintiff, DAVID JOHNSON is a resident of Duval County who resides at 12225
Premier Court, Jacksonville, Fl. 3223.
3. Plaintiff, JANE JOHNSON is a resident of Duval County who resides at 12225
Premier Court, Jacksonville, Fl. 3223.
4. Defendant, ALLEN H. LIBOW, ESQ, is a resident of Palm Beach County who
resides at 731 Parkside Circle North, Boca Raton, Fl. 33486. Defendant A. LIBOW is a partner
in the law firm of LIBOW & SHAHEEN, LLP.
5. Defendant, MELISSA LIBOW is a resident of Palm Beach County who resides at
731 Parkside Circle North, Boca Raton, Fl. 33486.
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
104/114
2
6. Defendant, LIBOW & SHAHEEN, LLP, is a Florida Limited Liability
Partnership with its principal place of business in Boca Raton, Palm Beach County, Florida.
7. Venue is proper in Palm Beach County, Florida pursuant to Fla. Stat. 47.011and 47.051 because the causes of action accrued in Palm Beach County, Florida.
8. All conditions precedent to this legal action have been met, satisfied, or waived.
ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
9. In 2003, David and Jane Johnson retained Mr. Libows firm, Libow & Muskat,
LLP (Libow & Shaheen, LLPs predecessor) as their counsel in a real estate dispute.
10.
In 2004, the attorney at Libow & Muskat who had been handling the Johnsonslitigation left the firm. The Johnsons elected to have that attorney continue to represent them
and submitted a notice to Libow & Muskat that they would no longer continue to use their
services as counsel.
11. In retaliation for the Johnsons decision to discontinue their use of Libow and his
firm, Defendant Allen Libow began to harass and threaten the Johnsons to continue to use his
firm and later to collect billing amounts Plaintiffs did not believe was due.
12. Defendant A. Libows conduct escalated to more frequent and severe harassing
written and verbal communications that greatly distressed both Plaintiffs. Libow brought suit
against the Johnsons for legal fees but never provided the Johnsons an opportunity to pay any
outstanding balance. Mr. Libows conduct throughout this period appeared to both Plaintiffs to
be unbecoming of any attorney because it involved the threat of filing and the actual filing of
false police reports and excessive repeated threatening phone calls.
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
105/114
3
13. As a result of Mr. Libows conduct, on August 16, 2004, Mr. Johnson filed a
complaint with the Florida Bar. Mr. Johnson filed this Complaint in order to protect himself and
the public from conduct he legitimately believes to have been unethical.
14. After receiving notice of the bar complaint, Mr. Libow stated that unless the
Johnsons paid him $100,000.00, Mr. Libow would bring suit against them.
15. Mr. Libow and his wife Melissa Libow, filed a Complaint in Palm Beach County
Circuit Court against Mr. and Mrs. Johnson for defamation. See Libow v. Johnson and Johnson ,
05-3299 CAA1, 502005CA003299XXXXMB. After multiple revisions, Defendants filed their
5th Amended Complaint on February 6, 2006.
16. The Complaint contained a total of 41 claims based upon Mr. Johnsons statement
to the Florida Bar.
17. The legal proceeding was caused and continued by Mr. and Mrs. Libow.
18. On May 11, 2006, all of Mrs. Libows claims against Mr. and Mrs. Johnson were
dismissed pursuant to a Motion to Dismiss, thus resulting in a bona fide termination of Mrs.Libows claims against the Johnsons.
19. Mr. Libows claims against Mrs. Johnson were also dismissed pursuant to a
Motion to Dismiss, thus resulting in a bona fide termination of Mr. Libows claims against Mrs.
Johnson.
20. During this same proceeding, the Court also dismissed 38 of Mr. Libows 41
claims against David Johnson.
21. Mr. Libow filed an appeal with the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District on
June 5, 2006.
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
106/114
4
22. On January 24, 2007, the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, affirmed the
lower courts dismissal of 38 of Mr. Libows 41 counts of defamation against Mr. Johnson. The
Court allowed 3 counts to proceed to Summary Judgment.23. On December 31, 2008, the Circuit Court entered Final Summary Judgment in
favor of David Johnson against all of Mr. Libows remaining claims.
24. On March 13, 2008, Mr. Libow and his firm appealed the lower courts entry of
Final Summary Judgment in favor of Mr. Johnson. See Libow & Shaheen, LLP v. Johnson and
Johnson , 05-3299 CAA1, 502005CA003299XXXXMB.
25. On July 8, 2008, the Fourth DCA issued its mandate affirming the lower courts
grant of summary judgment in favor of Mr. Johnson.
26. There was an absence of probable cause for Defendants initiation and
continuation of claims against the Johnsons, and such absence was at all times known or should
have been known to all Defendants
27. Malice was present on the part of the Defendants, as inferred from the lack of
probable cause to institute the proceedings, and the continuation of such proceedings.
28. As a result of Defendants unjust prosecution, Plaintiffs were forced to expend
hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and have suffered legal damages in an amount to
be proved at trial.
COUNT I MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
Plaintiffs sue Defendants Allen H. Libow, Melissa Libow, and Libow and Shaheen, LLP
for Malicious Prosecution.
29. Plaintiffs reallege Paragraphs 1 thru 28 above as if fully set forth herein.
30. Defendants instigated and continued a legal proceeding against each of the
Plaintiffs for defamation by filing a Complaint in Palm Beach County, Florida.
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
107/114
5
31. The original proceeding concluded with bona fide terminations in favor of the
Plaintiffs.
32. The Defendants were without probable cause to file the original proceeding for
these and other reasons:
a. Florida law has long recognized an absolute privilege on the part of a
citizen to make a complaint against a member of the bar;
b. A reasonable lawyer would not have regarded the claims against the
Johnsons to be tenable;
c. Mr. Libow unreasonably neglected to investigate the law and the facts
before deciding to proceed;
d. Neither Mr. Libow, nor Libow and Sheen LLP, had any reasonable or
honest belief that Mrs. Libow had a tenable claim against the Johnsons for
defamation;
e. Mrs. Libow had no legitimate basis to bring claims against the Johnsons
for defamation;
33. Each of the Defendants acted with actual and legal malice in filing and continuing
the original proceeding.
34. Defendants initiation and continuation of the civil proceeding for defamation has
damaged the Plaintiffs in an amount to be proven at trial.
35. The Plaintiffs joint and individual reputations have been injured by the unlawful
actions of the Defendants.
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
108/114
6
36. As a further result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiffs have been damaged by having
to pay monies to defend themselves in the defamation proceedings, loss of reputation, lost
business opportunities and lost profits, and pain and suffering due to wanton and grossly reckless
conduct.
WHEREFORE , Plaintiffs demand judgment for damages against Defendants, plus
punitive damages, interest, costs, attorneys fees, and any other appropriate remedies.
COUNT II CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
37. This is an action for the tort of civil conspiracy to commit malicious prosecution
brought against Allen Libow / Libow & Sheen, LLP and Melissa Libow.
38. Plaintiffs reallege 1 through 28 above as if fully set forth herein.
39. Defendants Allen Libow / Libow and Sheen LLP shared with Melissa Libow the
common purpose to illegally and unjustifiably engage in malicious prosecution of the Johnsons.
40. Defendants joined together and used their power to maliciously prosecute the
Johnsons by intentional and unjustifiable means.
41. Defendants took these actions against the Johnsons for the purpose of
accomplishing the underlying tort of malicious prosecution.
42. Defendants conspiracy resulted in the malicious prosecution of the Johnsons by
the commencement and continuation of a civil proceeding for defamation in Palm Beach County.
See Libow v. Johnson and Johnson , 05-3299 CAA1, 502005CA003299XXXXMB.
43. Defendants initiation and continuation of the civil proceeding for defamation has
damaged the Plaintiffs in an amount to be proven at trial.
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
109/114
7
44. The Plaintiffs joint and individual reputations have been injured by the unlawful
actions of the Defendants.
As a further result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiffs have been damaged by having to pay
monies to defend themselves in the defamation proceedings, loss of reputation, lost business
opportunities and lost profits, and pain and suffering due to wanton and grossly reckless conduct.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in an amount to be proven at trial to
compensate Plaintiffs for Defendants' conspiracy to maliciously prosecute Plaintiffs, and for
fees, costs and such other relief as this court deems just and proper.
COUNT III ABUSE OF PROCESS
45. This is an action for abuse of process against all Defendants.
46. Plaintiffs reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-28 as if set forth fully
herein and further alleges:
47. Defendants instigated and continued a civil action against the Johnsons in bad
faith and for purposes of extorting monies from the Johnsons to which Defendants were not
entitled, to extort other concessions from the Johnsons, and to damage the Johnsons reputations.
48. After the proceedings were instigated Defendants threatened to file and filed false
police reports, manufactured evidence, and otherwise carried on a pattern of wrongful, harassing,
and threatening misconduct.
49. Defendants use of civil court proceedings for purposes of extorting funds and
damaging the Johnsons reputations was an illegal, improper, and perverted use of the judicial
process.
50. Defendants initiation and continuation of the civil proceeding for defamation has
damaged the Plaintiffs in an amount to be proven at trial.
51. The Plaintiffs joint and individual reputations have been injured by the unlawful
actions of the Defendants.
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
110/114
8
52. As a further result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiffs have been damaged by having
to pay monies to defend themselves in the defamation proceedings, loss of reputation, lost
business opportunities and lost profits, and pain and suffering due to wanton and grossly reckless
conduct.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in an amount to be proven at trial to
compensate Plaintiffs for Defendants' conspiracy to maliciously prosecute Plaintiffs, and for
fees, costs and such other relief as this court deems just and proper.
NOTICE OF INTENT TO PLEAD PUNITIVE DAMAGES
54. Plaintiffs hereby give notice to Defendants that they intend to claim and willproffer evidence to support an award of punitive damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in an amount to be proven at trial to
compensate Plaintiffs for Defendants' conspiracy to maliciously prosecute Plaintiffs, and for
fees, costs and such other relief as this court deems just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs respectfully request a trial by jury.
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
111/114
9
DATED: January 24th, 2011.
__________________________DAVID JOHNSON
PRO SE __________________________
JANE JOHNSONPRO SE
12225 Premier Court,Jacksonville, Fl. 32223
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY under penalty of perjury that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing was served via hand delivery and U.S. Mail on: Allen Libow, Esquire , as an
individual and as a partner of Libow & Shaheen, LLP , at Libow & Shaheen, LLP, 3351
Northwest Boca Raton Boulevard, Boca Raton, Fl. 33431-6623, Melissa Libow , on this 24th day
of January, 2011.
__________________________DAVID JOHNSON
PRO SE
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
112/114
THE MIAMI MIRROR TRUE REFLECTIONS
Page 1 of 3
Monday, June 27, 2011
The Florida Bar sat on its "bureaucratic asses" while an influential membermaliciously prosecuted a client for complaining to it
INFLUENTIAL LAWYER SUED FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION The Florida Bar sat on its bureaucratic asses
By David Arthur WaltersThe Miami MirrorJune 27, 2011
MIAMI BEACH David Johnson and his wife Jane Johnson, former residents of Palm Beach
County, have filed a complaint in the circuit court of Palm Beach County against Palm Beachattorney Allen H. Libow, his wife Melissa Libow, and Boca Raton law firm Libow & ShaheenLLP et al, for malicious prosecution, conspiracy to commit malicious prosecution, and abuse of process, in regards to a defamation action first asserted by the defendants against the Johnsons in2004 for filing an absolutely privileged complaint against Libow with The Florida Bar, theagency of the Florida Supreme Court that licenses lawyers in the state, regulates their conduct,and presently represents mainly the political and business interests of the dominant professionalelite.
The defamation suit against the Johnsons was prosecuted by Mrs. Libows father, affluent Miami
attorney Arthur W. Tifford, who has not yet been named as a defendant in the Johnsonsmalicious prosecution complaint, and who has now appeared to defend his son-in-law from thatcomplaint. According to the court docket, attorneys Lisa Weiss and Bruce L. Udolf of BocaRaton law firm Udolf Libow have appeared to defend Mrs. Libow. The Johnsons are representedby Steven Jeffrey Rothman. (See case 502011CA001121XXXXMB).
Mr. Johnsons long-running Bar complaint, originally filed on August 16, 2004, alleged that Mr.Libow had filed a false police report as part of an attempt to extort a $100,000 settlement for adisputed legal fee amounting to $1,621. According to Mr. Johnson, that amount due hadallegedly been reduced from $5,014 after Mr. Johnson, who had already paid several thousanddollars in fees, demanded an accounting and discovered that he had even been billed for his
attorneys failure to appear for him in the case. The law firm even billed Mr. Johnson another$397 for itemizing the bill, at the hourly rate of $200. At one point, Mr. Libow, who is also acertified public accountant, allegedly told Mr. Johnson that clients at his firm had been overbilledfor research by his lawyer, that downward adjustments to one clients bill had been $11,000, andthat he, David Johnson, did not owe the law firm a dime; but he changed his mind when Johnsondecided to let that attorney, who had withdrawn from the Libow law firm and whom Mr. Libowwas defaming in his conversation with Mr. Johnson, continue to handle his case. The suit for the$1,621 fee balance was brought in the small claims court, where Eric Stockel, an attorney for the
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
113/114
THE MIAMI MIRROR TRUE REFLECTIONS
Page 2 of 3
Libow law firm, admitted that the complaint to the Bar was privileged; nevertheless, Mr. Libowasserted a defamation cause of action there and managed to have the issue removed to the circuitcourt (see Libow v. Johnson and Johnson, 05-3299 CAA1, 502005CA003299XXXXMB) whereit was prosecuted by Mr. Tifford. Mrs. Johnson was named in the defamation suit although shehad not signed the Bar complaint against Mr. Libow and other members of his firm.
The Bar complaint stated that Mr. Libow had claimed that his wife put him up to making thepolice report, and complained that Mr. Libow was making over death threats. Mr. Johnsonopined that Libow was emotionally disturbed, having likened his Bar complaint with the January2005 murderer of Mr. Libows babysitter, Shanette Jones, and her two daughters, Ashley andJoanna Robinson; the girls step-father, who had attempted suicide, was suspected in theshooting. The family had made a lot of money in real estate; Mr. Libow would representShanette Jones parents in the wrongful death civil suit.
Mr. Johnson disparaged Mr. Libows character in his complaint to the Bar, stating, for example,
that, while Jessie James used a horse and a six-gun to carry out his robberies, Mr. Libow uses acomputer and the United States Mail to carry out his. He further claimed that Mr. Libow carriedout said robberies on less sophisticated clients; had a total absence of ethics; was guilty toconcocting a story and filing a false police report; modified (forged) email; was apathological liar predisposed to wild accusations; overbilled and used unlawful collectionsmethods; abused the legal process; was a psychotic misfit with a psychotic agenda, besidesbeing a creative, twisted, lying son of a bitch. After nine months had passed since Mr. Johnsonfiled the original complaint, he besought the Bar, which had yet done nothing, to get off yourbureaucratic asses and do something before this twisted madman lands us all on the six oclock news.
The defamation suit against the Johnsons was ultimately dismissed by the circuit court and thedismissal was affirmed on appeal. The lower court held that most of the statements made weremere opinions or were hyperbole not to be seriously construed as statements of fact, and thatother assertions were not otherwise actionable. The few fact-like statements that would beactionable if false were protected or absolutely privileged because they were made in a complaintto public officials for redress of grievances. Therefore there was nothing to be taken to trial. Butthat was not the end of the duress for the Johnsons, who refused to be slapped into silence andwho claimed they had fronted nearly a quarter million dollars to defend themselves, which theywere at a loss to fully recover.
As for The Florida Bar, it took no action against Mr. Libow or other lawyers at his firm oragainst his father-in-law, Mr. Tifford, even though threatening to file or filing a suit againstsomeone for bringing an inquiry or complaint to The Florida Bar is a prima facie violation of theethical standards promulgated by the Bar.
For example, in The Florida Bar v James Daniel Eckert, File No. 2009-11,071 (6C), The FloridaBar averred that Mr. Eckert had represented Jean Camposecco in post dissolution of marriage
8/6/2019 Johnson v Libow Complaint and Docket
114/114
THE MIAMI MIRROR TRUE REFLECTIONS
proceedings, and that, while the case was pending, the opposing party, Robert Camposecco, filedan Inquiry/Complaint form against the lawyer with The Florida Bar, which it received on March4, 2009, alleging that Mr. Eckert had blackmailed him, and had personally called him at homealthough he was represented by an attorney, one Phillip McLeod. Those complaints weredropped or dismissed by the Bar although it did not create a record explicitly discharging them.
However, the Bar on its own initiative charged Mr. Eckert with threatening to sue Mr.Camposecco with defamation for bringing the complaint. On December 30, 2009, the SixthJudicial Circuit Grievance Committee found probable cause for further disciplinary proceedings,that the Respondent had violated Florida Bar: Rule 4-8.4(d), stating that a lawyer shall notengage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administrationof justice. The probable misconduct was stated as: On or about July 9, 2009, Respondent wrotea letter to a complainant threatening to sue him for defamation and damages unless he withdrewhis Bar complaint and issued a letter of apology within five days. The lawyer and his attorneyclaimed ignorance of the Rule and the common law involved, and copped a plea.
To the best of our information and belief, The Florida Bar has not been sued for its grossnegligence or otherwise taken to task for its dereliction of duty in the Libow v. Johnson matteralthough it has been aware of the infraction of its Rules since 2004 (the Bar has as recently asthis 2011 reviewed documents in the matter) yet did nothing to stop the malicious prosecution of the Johnsons, which would have saved the courts and everyone else concerned a great deal of aggravation, time and money.
It is reasonable to assume that the power elite at the Bar have a favorable relationship withMssrs. Libow and Tifford, or that the persons involved at the Bar are incompetent; in either case
they should be discharged from their offices forthwith, as they would be if they worked for agood law firm, and perhaps subjected to Bar investigations themselves. That is highly unlikely tohappen, however, unless the Press, the so-called fourth branch of government, is willing to shedlight on the matter, something that mainstream publications including the Miami Herald and theSouth Florida Business Journal have failed to do, despite being fully informed of the particulars