Marc Randazza to Offer False Testimony
From a Florida Bar Complaint Filed by Don Juravin Against Marc Randazza
On October 9th, 2015, Mr. Randazza threatened Ms. Koroll to induce her to offer false testimony against Mr. Juravin by sending her a draft of motion for sanctions. Additionally, he attempted to induce Mr. Juravin to sign false statements in exchange for dismissing the lawsuit against Roca Labs. In Hazel Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944) the Court noted that “tampering with the administration of justice. . . is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public, institutions in which fraud cannot complacently be tolerated consistently with the good order of society.”
According to the Florida Bar Supreme Court, No breach of professional ethics, or of the law, is more harmful to the administration of justice or more hurtful to the public appraisal of the legal profession than the knowledgeable use by an attorney of false testimony in the judicial process. The Court have warned that such conduct warrants severe discipline and have dealt harshly with those who commit this offense. See Florida Bar v. Rightmyer, 616 So. 2d 953, 955 (Fla. 1993) (disbarring attorney and stating that "[a]n officer of the court who knowingly and deliberately seeks to corrupt the legal process can logically expect to be excluded from that process").
Mr. Randazza’s actions are no less dangerous that what the Court warned about in Hazel and Righmyer. There is a repeated pattern of tampering with the administration of justice that is in violation of the ethical flora bar rules. Specifically, it is a direct violation of Florida bar rules 4–8.4(c). Such violations if left unchecked and not punished makes a mockery of not only the judicial system but also of the State bar who has for purpose regulating conduct of its attorneys for protection of the public.
Marc Randazza Grievous and Repeated Violations of Florida Bar Ethical Rules and Nevada State Bar Probation Violations
Don Juravin files this Complaint against Marc Randazza based upon egregious misconduct under the ethical rules and personal persecution of Don Juravin under the guise of the law. His improper actions were not authorized or sanctioned by the law and are in direct violation of the Florida Bar Ethical Rules. “The commission by a lawyer of any act that is unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice, whether the act is committed in the course of the attorney's relations as an attorney or otherwise may constitute cause for discipline.” (Florida Bar Rule 3-4.3)
Applicable Florida Bar Rules
4–3.3(a) (“A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal; (2) fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client; (3) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or (4) permit any witness, including a criminal defendant, to offer testimony or other evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. A lawyer may not offer testimony that the lawyer knows to be false in the form of a narrative unless so ordered by the tribunal. If a lawyer has offered material evidence and thereafter comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures.”).
4 4–3.4(a) (a lawyer shall not unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence);
4–3.4(b) (a lawyer shall not fabricate evidence); 4–3.4(c) (a lawyer shall not knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal); 4–3.4(d) (a lawyer shall not make a frivolous discovery request or intentionally fail to comply with a legally proper discovery request);
4–8.4(c) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); and 4–8.4(d) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice).
4-4.4 (a) In representing a client, a lawyer may not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person or knowingly use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.
Rule 4-8.4 (a-b) A Lawyer shall not: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.
Rule 4-8.4(d) A lawyer shall not. engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, including to knowingly, or through callous indifference, disparage, humiliate, or discriminate against litigants, jurors, witnesses, court personnel, or other lawyers on any basis, including, but not limited to, on account of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national origin, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, employment, or physical characteristic.
Rule 4-1.5 An attorney shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect an illegal, prohibited, or clearly excessive fee or cost, or a fee generated by employment that was obtained through advertising or solicitation not in compliance with the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. A fee or cost is clearly excessive when: (1) after a review of the facts, a lawyer of ordinary prudence would be left with a definite and firm conviction that the fee or the cost exceeds a reasonable fee or cost for services provided to such a degree as to constitute clear overreaching or an unconscionable demand by the attorney; or (2) the fee or cost is sought or secured by the attorney by means of intentional misrepresentation or fraud upon the client.
Rule 4-3.1(A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.