THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Val R. PATARINI, Respondent, 548 So. 2d 1110

PER CURIAM. This disciplinary proceeding is before us on complaint of The Florida Bar and the referee’s report. We have jurisdiction under

article V,

section 15 of the Florida Constitution and consider the case pursuant to rule 3-7.6 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Rules). The conduct at issue arose from post-dissolution proceedings in which respondent’s former wife sought to enforce provisions of the dissolution decree against respondent. Apparently blaming the ex-wife’s counsel for his problems, respondent asked a client to locate a “muscle man” willing to physically harm or threaten the ex-wife’s counsel. The client, who was a police informant, arranged for respondent to meet a purported muscle man who was in fact a police undercover officer.

These conversations between respondent and his client and muscle man, which were recorded, included discussions of blowing up the counsel’s car, breaking his arm, or otherwise harming him or his property. Respondent also expressed interest in using the muscle man to collect debts owed to respondent by certain clients and in providing services to other clients who might need his services. These multiple meetings and conversations took place over several weeks ending with respondent telling the muscle man he would call him if he needed him.

The referee recommends finding respondent guilty of conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law and conduct contrary to good morals. The parties agree on the findings of fact and recommendations of guilt, which we approve. The referee also recommends that respondent be publicly reprimanded, placed on probation for one year, and required to undergo supportive therapy.

In recommending this discipline, the referee was apparently influenced by respondent’s twenty-three year discipline-free record, by uncontroverted favorable testimony concerning respondent’s character and competence, and by uncontroverted testimony from a clinical psychologist that respondent’s conduct was an aberration which arose from the emotional strain he was suffering as a result of the marriage dissolution and post-dissolution proceedings.

The Bar argues that the recommended discipline is inadequate given the seriousness of the misconduct and that respondent should be suspended for a period of ninety-one days and required to show fitness to practice law prior to reinstatement. We exercise a broad scope of review in evaluating a referee’s recommendation of discipline. The Fla. Bar in re Inglis, 471 So.2d 38 (Fla.1985). Respondent’s misconduct was considerably more than fantasizing or momentary anger.

Over a period of weeks, he actively sought and obtained someone willing to perform illegal violent acts, provided the muscle man with the name and particulars of the intended victim, reached the point in the discussion where only a phone call was needed to have the illegal acts carried out, and, finally, never clearly renounced the planned illegal activity. Even if we afford maximum weight to the evidence of mitigation, a public reprimand or a ninety-one day suspension is inadequate. Disbarment would be an appropriate discipline were it not for extensive mitigating circumstances.

Patar-ini has had a long trouble-free past as a lawyer, and his actions here took place during a period of intense emotional upheaval precipitated by his divorce. We agree with the referee’s conclusion that this was an isolated incident that never went beyond the talking stage. Accordingly, we suspend Patarini for a period of one year and thereafter until he has demonstrated fitness to be reinstated. The suspension will be effective October 16, 1989, giving him thirty days to close out his practice and protect his client’s interests. As provided by rule 3-5.1(

h) of the Rules, respondent shall provide notice of his suspension to clients and shall accept no new clients until reinstated. He is ordered to pay the costs of this proceeding and judgment is entered against him for $1,241.71, for which sum let execution issue. It is so ordered. OVERTON, MCDONALD, SHAW and GRIMES, JJ., concur. BARKETT, J., dissents with an opinion, in which EHRLICH, C.J. and KOGAN, J., concur. Respectively, The Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(6) and The Florida Bar Integration Rule,

article XI, Rule 11.02(3). The complaint here was initiated prior to the adoption of Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.