Do Not Pass Go

The Florida Supreme Court increased the jail time for indirect criminal contempt  of a permamently disbarre d attorneyfrom the proposed 10 day incarceration to 60 days with 50 days stayed and probation

We have for review a referee’s report recommending that Respondent, Jeffrey Alan Norkin, be found in indirect criminal contempt of our October 8, 2015, order permanently disbarring him from the practice of law in Florida, and that he be incarcerated for a period of 10 days, among other sanctions. As discussed below, we approve the referee’s findings of fact and the recommendation that Norkin be held in contempt. However, we disapprove the referee’s recommended sanction, and we instead sentence Norkin to 60 days in the Broward County Jail, with 50 days of the sentence suspended contingent upon Norkin completing five months of probation. As a condition of his probation, Norkin must obtain a psychological evaluation within 30 days of his release from jail and begin any recommended treatment thereafter.

Respondent was suspended for two years in 2013

On numerous occasions while in court, Norkin “would raise his voice and behave in an angry, disrespectful manner,” and he “persisted until the proceedings were disrupted.” Id. at 84. Norkin made it impossible for the court to conduct hearings, and the judge “was forced to terminate proceedings and refer all discovery matters to a general magistrate.” Id. Norkin also sent insulting and disparaging letters and e-mails to his opposing counsel and made insulting statements regarding opposing counsel in public.

He had failed to comply with requirements imposed on suspended attorneys

Moreover, Norkin engaged in the practice of law while suspended by e-mailing opposing counsel regarding a case, drafting motions for a client, and having multiple telephone conversations with a client regarding the client’s case. Id. at 1022. In imposing a sanction, we noted that we do not hesitate “to disbar attorneys who continue to practice law after being suspended.” Id. at 1023. We also considered Norkin’s “continuation of his egregious behavior following his suspension and during the administration of the public reprimand” and that he has “continue[d] to demonstrate his disregard for this Court, his unrepentant attitude, and his intent to continue his defiant and contemptuous conduct.” Id. Thus, we concluded that permanent disbarment was warranted, and on October 8, 2015, we permanently disbarred Norkin from the practice of law in Florida. Id.

Nevertheless, after being permanently disbarred, Norkin continued to represent Beem in the civil matter. Norkin filed pleadings attempting to attain party status in Beem’s lawsuit, which at the time still had a number of post-trial matters pending. The circuit court rejected Norkin’s request for party status. Yet, Norkin appeared in court proceedings and filed motions, responses, and memoranda of law in the matter on behalf of Beem. Norkin also used the e-mail domain associated with his prior law practice— i.e., norkinlaw.com—in his signature blocks in the pleadings.

As a result

In August 2022, Norkin pled no contest to one count of unlicensed practice of law. He was sentenced to one year of administrative probation, with the special conditions that he stay away from the plaintiff in Beem’s case and cease all use of his norkinlaw.com e-mail address.

Even when Norkin’s criminal case was ongoing, Norkin continued to act as legal counsel for Beem from 2018 to 2021. He continued to insist on his right to proceed as a party in Beem’s civil case, even though the circuit court had rejected his position. Furthermore, Norkin moved the Third District Court of Appeal to add him as a co-appellant on all issues in the appeal of Beem’s civil case, but the district court denied his request on April 22, 2019. Nevertheless, Norkin proceeded to file over 20 documents in the Third District.

Leading to the present charges

In the instant Bar discipline proceedings, the referee found that by filing joint motions on behalf of Beem, advocating and negotiating on Beem’s behalf, and using his norkinlaw.com e-mail address in pleadings, Norkin intentionally engaged in the unlicensed practice of law in violation of this Court’s disbarment order. He found that Norkin continued these actions even though he was criminally charged, which had put him on notice that his continued filings constituted the unlicensed practice of law in contravention of this Court’s disbarment order. The circuit court’s denial of his motion to be added as a party, the Third District’s denial of his motion to be added as a co-appellant, the bankruptcy court’s striking of his brief, the information, and the affidavit for arrest warrant gave Norkin ample notice that his financial interest alone did not give him permission to file pleadings when he was not a named party.

The referee found that Norkin used his defunct Bar credentials to e-file pleadings after he was disbarred. Upon review of Norkin’s e-portal profile, it was discovered that Norkin had an “active” profile with the role designated as an “attorney.” Also, the profile was linked to Norkin’s norkinlaw.com e-mail address and his now defunct Bar number. Norkin stipulated that he used his e-portal account to file documents on more than 200 occasions since he was disbarred.

Also, Norkin operated a website for his company Assurance Client Support (ACS). The website was misleading as to his true status with The Florida Bar in that he held himself out as a practicing attorney and did not clarify that he was in fact disbarred. Also, Norkin’s Facebook page, which contained a segment on his employment history, gave viewers the impression that ACS was a law firm consisting at least in part of attorneys who work as “inhouse counsel,” a position which is ordinarily understood to be occupied by attorneys. Thus, Norkin held himself out as a practicing attorney on his Facebook page after being disbarred.

Additionally, while the case was pending before the referee, Norkin engaged in inappropriate behavior. He accused Bar counsel of being unethical, committing fraud upon the court, and engaging in criminal activity. He claimed the referee was being influenced by outside entities. And he insinuated he would harm himself if he received an unfavorable outcome in this case.

Sanction

Norkin has shown a blatant disregard for the authority of the courts, including this Court, by his refusal to abide by their and our orders. This is part of a larger pattern of disrespect for the courts, opposing counsel, and the judicial system as a whole that relates back to the initial misconduct that resulted in his suspension. Given Norkin’s staunch refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing and his vow to “never stop,” the only means of compelling his future compliance with this Court’s disbarment order is with a meaningful sanction.

This Court has exhausted all sanction options other than ordering a period of incarceration. Although the referee recommended a 10-day sentence, the Bar argues that it is too lenient given the circumstances of this case and asks for a 60-day sentence without probation. Considering Norkin’s pattern of misconduct we believe a period of incarceration followed by probation during which Norkin is required to undergo a psychological evaluation would be appropriate. We therefore sentence Norkin to 60 days in the Broward County Jail with 50 days of the sentence suspended, contingent upon him completing probation with special conditions.

Forthwith

Norkin shall surrender to the Broward County Sheriff within five days after service of this opinion on Norkin. In the event Norkin does not surrender, the Sheriff of Broward County, Florida, is authorized and directed to take Norkin into custody and imprison him for 60 days. All pending motions are hereby denied.

(Mike Frisch)