The Florida Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday morning for and against disbarment for Fort Lauderdale attorney Stephen Rakusin, accused of filing a frivolous lawsuit based on false claims by a former judge.

Court-appointed referee Palm Beach County Court Judge Paul Damico has recommended that Rakusin lose his law license.

But Rakusin's attorney, Kevin Tynan of Richardson & Tynan in Tamarac, argued that the Florida Bar filed its complaint outside the statute of limitations.

The parties put forward conflicting interpretations of a Florida Bar rule that says complainants should make allegations of misconduct "within six years from the time the matter giving rise to the inquiry or complaint is discovered or, with due diligence, should have been discovered."

Tynan asserted that the six-year window began in May 2009 when Rakusin filed the pleading on behalf of his client, former Broward Circuit Judge Laura Watson. The grievance complaint wasn't filed until seven years later in 2016.

Florida Bar counsel and Sunrise attorney Linda Gonzalez argued that the clock didn't start ticking until 2014 when Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Beatrice Butchko found Watson's complaint was a sham pleading. Butchko entered a final judgment for the defense and awarded $84,500 in attorney fees, of which Rakusin shouldered $42,250. The Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld the ruling in 2016.

The complaint is not visible in online case files, but according to Butchko's order, Watson had sued Miami law firm Stewart Tilghman Fox & Bianchi and two attorneys over comments they made to the Daily Business Review about an earlier case, in which she was the defendant. Watson claimed those comments were defamatory because she had defeated that claim and was exonerated, but Butchko found that she had not.

Watson was removed from the bench in 2015 over ethical complaints and permanently disbarred in 2017 for her role in negotiating an undisclosed settlement during her time as an insurance litigator at Watson & Lenter.

In oral arguments, Florida Supreme Court Justice Barbara Lagoa challenged Tynan's assertion that the six-year window should have started when the suit was filed, raising questions about when complainants should reasonably be expected to file grievance complaints and thus trigger the six-year timer.

"When should an attorney file a complaint with the bar when we have a rule that says you cannot gain an advantage on the other side by bringing criminal proceedings or bringing any kind of proceeding against the other side?" Lagoa asked.

On the other hand, Justice Robert Luck probed Gonzalez about when the complainant knew the pleading was a sham, reasoning that if the allegations were known to be baseless from the start, then maybe the six-year period should have begun then.

Gonzalez pushed for the most severe sanction, arguing, "the aggravating circumstances and misconduct found in this case are outrageous."

Tynan asked the court to lean away from disbarment for Rakusin and look instead at sanctions prescribed in similar cases that, "even with this court's philosophy of being stronger today," suggest that a 90-day suspension is suitable.

Rakusin did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but his attorney said, "It was a good argument and we hope the court will rule in our favor."

The court has yet to rule.

|

Click here to read the referee's report

|

Read more: