Wow. I just pulled this document from federal court. This woman's act appears to be her modus operandi:
Based on all of the evidence, it is clear that Ms. Perez's actions in this case fall below the required standards of conduct and professionalism. Time and money has been wasted in this case simply because Ms. Perez failed to familiarize herself with the Rules Of Appellate Procedure and the rules of the Eleventh Circuit. Mr. Acuna–Acosta has been brought for re sentencing, new counsel has been appointed and the Government has incurred the additional expense of the § 2255 petition and the re-sentencing hearing. It is also noteworthy that Mr. Acuna–Acosta had agreed to an appellate waiver in this case. These issues could have been resolved in a timely and efficient manner. Instead, this matter was prolonged and resulted in unnecessary hearings.
Most troubling is that Ms. Perez fails to accept responsibility for her actions and is quick to blame others for her shortcomings. In this case, Ms. Perez blames Federal Express, the Eleventh Circuit Clerk, and even Magistrate Johnson for the predicament in which she now finds herself. She does not recognize that she is in this position because she failed to familiarize herself with the rules of appellate procedure. This matter could have been avoided had she simply read the rules.
*5 In this case and in another recent case before this Court, Ms. Perez repeatedly made statements of fact that were inaccurate and that she could not support.9 At times it appears that she is simply imprecise in her words, but often she makes statements of fact recklessly without any effort to determine their accuracy or truth. Ms. Perez has often stated that she “filed” a document when in fact she actually mailed it on a certain date. She states that she attempted to confer with opposing counsel only to later admit that she told her secretary to do so and at a time that was after normal business hours. She asked for a continuance representing that she could not work or travel only to appear at hearings in other cases before other judges. In this case, Ms. Perez may have believed that she filed all the appropriate documents, but it apparent she did not do so. I have warned her in the past, and continue to warn her, that she needs to be more careful in both her practice and her statements. A lawyer's success is measured, in great part, by her reputation. Ms. Perez must take care to avoid earning a reputation as a lawyer whose word cannot be trusted.
In conclusion, I agree with what Magistrate Johnson summed up in a single sentence: “It is likely that [Ms. Perez] simply failed to pay sufficient attention to her practice.” See DE 606 at 10. Ms. Perez may be dealing with significant issues in her personal life. However, this does not excuse her actions in this case. While Ms. Perez may not have acted in bad faith, her actions were, at the very least, negligent. Attorneys are held to a high standard of professionalism and conduct. Ms. Perez is expected to represent her clients diligently and competently, but failed to do so in this case. The Court therefore adopts the Magistrate's finding that Ms. Perez has violated the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. In particular, Rule 4–1.1 and 4–1.3. The Court being fully advised in the premises, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Johnson are hereby ADOPTED IN PART. The Court does not find that Ms. Perez acted in bad faith. However, the Court agrees with Magistrate Johnson that Ms. Perez's actions in this case fall below the Florida Bar's standards of conduct and professionalism. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this matter is hereby REFERRED to Chief Judge Moreno for disciplinary action as he may deem appropriate.
DONE AND ORDERED at West Palm Beach, Florida, this 17th day of February, 2010.
Edit: I bolded the foregoing. This is from Judge Middlebrooks, a federal court judge.
