Micheal J. Napoleone of Richman Greer Bar Complaint

Michael J. Napoleone

Richman Greer

Bar Complaint Filed on November 30, 2014

Micheal J. Napoleone of Richman Greer

Micheal J. Napoleone of Richman Greer

Michael J. Napoleone Bar Complaint – November 30, 2014

Mr. Michael J. Napoleone, a shareholder of the Richman Greer Law firm, was an attorney for the Defense in the matter of Jason Halle v. Peter Halle, L. T. Case No. 502011CP005095XXXXSB, and the Fourth District Court of Appeal Case No. 4DCA13-3796.

Mr. Napoleone’s misconduct and perjury was a result of trying to cover up the misconduct and perjury of his partner, Mr. John George White, III, also a shareholder of the Richman Greer Law firm, and also an attorney for the Defendant. He also was trying to win the case without regard for Rule 4-3.3 of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct: Candor Toward the Tribunal.

Mr. White gave false and perjurious testimony during a hearing held on August 28, 2013. This hearing resulted in the Honorable David E. French of the 15th Judicial Circuit of Florida Dismissing a Complaint with Prejudice and causing me, the Plaintiff in this action, serious injury.

Mr. White testified before the Court on that day, “…the plaintiff keeps filing these lawsuits, they keep getting dismissed, chewing up money, you know, money potentially that’s in the trust and there’s not a lot of it and I think it’s time that Your Honor dismiss it with prejudice.” (Exhibit A, page 11, lines 14-18)

Mr. White continued on line 19, “They’ve had ample opportunity. This is their fourth go around on this and it should be dismissed with prejudice…”

On page 12, line 7 of the transcript I objected to Mr. White’s testimony and said to the court, “… – – This is the first motion to dismiss that this Court has ever heard. He (Mr. White) says this is the fourth. It is not the fourth.” Mr. White let his false and fabricated testimony stand and have its full impact on the court.

Only a trial court judge can dismiss a complaint by issuing an order granting a motion to dismiss and no such orders were ever issued in this case before the Hearing on August 28, 2013.

On January 6, 2014, in an Initial Brief for the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida, I stated “During the hearing on August 28, 2013, Mr. White, the counsel for the Appellee openly and blatantly lied before the Honorable Court. He falsely claimed that the Appellant, ‘keeps filing these lawsuits, they keep getting dismissed, chewing up, you know, money potentially that’s in the trust and there’s not a lot of it and I think it’s time that Your Honor dismiss it with prejudice.’” (Exhibit B, page 8, last paragraph)

“In fact, only one lawsuit was ever filed with this or any other court. No complaint that was ever filed with the leave of the lower court was ever dismissed for any reason except at the hearing on August 28, 2013.” (Exhibit B, page 9, ¶1)

“I replied to Mr. Whites lies, ‘This is the first motion to dismiss (based solely on lack of cause of action) that this Court has ever heard. He (Mr. White) says this is the fourth. It is not the fourth….’” (Exhibit B, page 9, ¶2)

On February 21, 2014, Mr. Napoleone and Mr. White filed Appellee’s Answer Brief. They responded to my Initial Brief by stating, “Appellant’s Initial Brief seeks to divert attention from his repeated failure to state a cause of action after many opportunities to do so, by attacking Peter Halle’s counsel, John G. “Jay” White, III by claiming Mr. White ‘blatantly lied before the Honorable Court.’ (IB.8) Appellant cites to Mr. White’s representation that Appellant ‘keeps filing lawsuits, they keep getting dismissed,….’ As part of his request for a dismissal with prejudice. Mr. White did not ‘lie,’ as Appellant alleges in his ad hominem attack.” (Exhibit C, page 8, ¶1)

Mr. Napoleone and Mr. White continued in their brief with erroneous and false explanations of how five separate complaints were dismissed. Yet Mr. Napoleone and Mr. White did not cite multiple orders granting motions to dismiss before August 28, 2013. The reason for this is because no such orders exist. Mr. Napoleone and Mr. White successfully confused the court by suggesting that they, the opposing counsels, had the legal authority to dismiss complaints and the trial court judge was no longer needed in the legal process to decide if a complaint has not stated a cause of action or should be dismissed.

Mr. Napoleone was lead counsel on this case and he knew that there had been no dismissals in this case before the hearing on August, 28, 2013. Yet he gave false information and perjured himself in the Answer Brief to maintain the deceptive illusion that there had been previous dismissals as Mr. White had testified.

Mr. Napoleone was well aware of the fact that he was providing the court with further false and perjurious information about Mr. White’s false testimony at the hearing on August 28, 2013. He made no attempt to take reasonable remedial measures including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal as required by the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct. (Exhibit D)

Mr. Napoleone is in violation of the following Florida Rules of Professional Conduct:

  1. Rule 4-3.3(a)(1) False Evidence; Duty to Disclose. A lawyer shall not knowingly: make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;
  1. Rule 4-3.3(a)(4) A lawyer shall not knowingly: offer 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, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.
  1. Rule 4-8.4(a) Prohibits the lawyer from violating the rules of Professional Conduct or knowingly assisting another to do so.
  1. Rule 4-8.4(b) Prohibits a lawyer from committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer
  1. Rule 4-8.4(c) Prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
  1. Rule 4-8.4(d) Prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Mr. Napoleone has caused serious injury due to his false testimony, perjury and by not making any effort to remedy the situation of the serious injury he had caused me.

Mr. Napoleone’s intention was to mislead the court without regard for the potential injury that could reasonably be foreseen at the time as a result of his misconduct.

Under the Florida Bar Standards for Lawyer Sanctions disbarment is appropriate under 5.11(f) and 6.11(a-b).

The false and perjurious testimony was very prejudicial and damaging.

After the Florida Bar has had an opportunity to investigate this complaint, I ask that the findings be forwarded to the appropriate District Attorney for criminal prosecution under the Florida Statutes §837.07(1)(3) which classifies perjury in official proceedings as a felony of the third degree.

The Florida Statutes §837.07(1-2), Recantation as a defense, does not apply as Mr. Napoleone does not meet either of the requirements of the statute.

This is the body of a public record on file at The Florida Bar, 651 East Jefferson Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300

 


Leave a Reply