IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

THE FLORIDA BAR, Case No.: SC05-1149

L.T. Case No.: 2004-10,132(6A)
Complainant RECEIVED
THOMAS D. HAU.

v.

MARK A. ADAMS, CLERK, SUPREME COURT

BY

Resvondent. 1

RESPONDENT'S VERIFIED MOTION TO VACATE ORDER

ENTERED ON JULY 12,2007 DISBARRING THE RESPONDENT

COMES NOW, the Respondent, MARK A. ADAMS, Esquire and files the

Respondent's Motion to Vacate this Court's Order entered on July 12,2007

disbarring the Respondent showing:

Statement of Facts

1. On May 14,2007, the Clerk of this Court issued an order requiring the

Respondent to file a proper initial brief within fifteen (15) days and served

the same to the Respondent via mail. (Emphasis added.)

2. The Respondent timely filed the Respondent's Motion for Clarification of

this Court's Order entered on May 14,2007 which pointed out that previous

orders entered in this action had not required the Clerk or the Florida Bar to

prepare an index to the record which made it impossible for the Respondent

to cite to the appropriate page numbers of the record as required by Florida

Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.210(b). This motion also pointed out that the
 order entered on May 16,2006 denied the Respondent's alternative request

to file a brief referring to the documents filed in this action and allowing the

Respondent to include an appendix with key documents necessary for this

Court's review of this disciplinary proceeding. Furthermore, this motion

pointed out that unless this Court granted the requested relief, it will have

effectively prevented the Respondent from preparing a proper brief and will

have deprived the Respondent of due process.1

3. On July, 12,2007, the Clerk of this Court issued an order denying the

Respondent's Motion for Clarification of this Court's Order entered on May

14,2007, an order denying the Respondent's Motion to Correct the ~ocket:

an order denying the Respondent's Motion to Toll Time to File Brief, and an

order dismissing the Respondent's Petition for Review, and the Clerk of this

' The Respondent has also previously filed a motion showing that the Clerk of this
Court acknowledged that documents, which are required to be included in the file
and which the Respondent discovered were missing from it, were instead stored in
-
a room in the Court's sub-basement. The documents which were missing from the
file included transcripts, motions, and orders regarding proceedings before the
referee which showed the numerous errors which were committed by the referee
including preventing the Respondent from calling witnesses in his defense,
prohibiting the Respondent from deposing witnesses who were listed as witnesses
by the Florida Bar, allowing one witness to represent other witnesses, and entering
an order without a hearing on the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss.
'Although the Court denied the Respondent's Motion to Correct the Docket which
was filed on May 3 1,2007, the Clerk or another person with access to this Court's
online docket corrected the error shown in this motion by June 1,2007 even
though this motion did not show up on this Court's online docket until June 5,
2007, five days after it was filed.
 Court served these four orders to the Respondent via U.S. Mail. No other

order entered on July 12,2007 was served to the Respondent by the Clerk of

this Court or received by the Respondent.

4. On July 19,2007, Ms. Sheryl Walker of the Florida Bar sent a letter to the

Respondent which stated in part, "The filing of a motion for rehearing does

not alter the effective date of the disbarment." The Florida Bar's letter

included the Florida Bar's Failure to Pay Notice and an Affidavit required

by Bar Rule 3-5.l(g) as enclosures, and it did not contain a copy of any

order. The pertinent part of Florida Bar's Failure to Pay Notice states,

"Disciplinary costs are deemed delinquent unless they are paid within 30

days after the disciplinary order becomes final. Usually, that is forty-five

~ Florida Bar's letter and its

(45) days after the date of the court ~ r d e r . "The

enclosures are attached as Appendix A.

5. On July 27, 2007, the Respondent traveled for over ten hours to file the

Respondent's Motion for Rehearing of Order Entered on July 12,2007

Dismissing the Respondent's Petition for Review, the Respondent's Second

Motion to Correct the Docket, and the Respondent's Motion to Toll Time to

File Brief and to review the case file.

The Florida Bar's Failure to Pay Notice indicates that the Florida Bar is aware
that the rules concerning motions for rehearing apply to orders of disbarment.
6. When the Respondent reviewed the case file on July 27,2007, he learned

that the Clerk of this Court had entered a fifth order on July 12,2007 which

indicated that the Respondent was permanently disbarred and which

provided that a motion for rehearing shall not delay the effective date of this

order.4 This order was only signed by the Clerk of this Court and the

Deputy Clerk refused to provide any document showing that this order was

authorized by the required number of Justices or the names of the Justices

who authorized this order.

On July 27,2007, the Respondent also learned that the documents which had

been stored in the sub-basement had been put back together with the file,

although it was not clear when such action was taken, but most importantly,

the Respondent learned that a number of exhibits which he submitted to the

referee, Gregory P. Holder, were missing from the file and also not

accounted for by Judge Holder on the list that he prepared of the

Respondent's exhibits.'

The Respondent does not know the exact language used in this order as the
Respondent was not served with a copy and has not received one, and although the
Respondent informed the Deputy Clerk that he had not received a copy of this
order and requested one, the Deputy Clerk rehsed to provide one to the
Respondent without charging a fee for the same.
'If the Justices had reviewed the transcripts of the proceedings before the referee as
required by Rule 3-7.7(a)(2), they would have surely noticed the fact that several
of the exhibits submitted to the referee by the Respondent were missing from the
case file.
8. If the Respondent had been served with the order indicating that he was

permanently disbarred, he would have filed a timely motion for rehearing

pointing out the points of law, the rules of procedure, and the facts that this

Court had overlooked in reaching its decision in addition to the other

motions which he filed on July 27,2007.

9. To date the Respondent still has not received a copy of the order entered by

the Clerk of this Court on July 12,2007 indicating that the Respondent is

permanently disbarred and that a motion for rehearing shall not delay the

effective date of this order.

10. As the Florida Bar's letter dated July 19,2007 did not contain a copy of the

order permanently disbarring the Respondent, it appears that the member of

the Clerk's office who was responsible for mailing copies of the orders

entered on July 12,2007 also failed to include this order when mailing the

orders entered on July 12,2007 to counsel for the Florida Bar.

11. The record shows that the Florida Bar did not file any response opposing the

Respondent's Motion for Clarification of this Court's Order entered on May

14,2007, the Respondent's Motion to Correct the Docket, or the

Respondent's Motion to Toll Time to File Brief, and the record shows that

the Florida Bar did not file any motion seeking to limit the Respondent's

right to file a motion for rehearing or the effect of a motion for rehearing.
12. Furthennore, the Respondent has not found and the Florida Bar has not cited

any provision of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar that provides for any

other way in which to refer to the record in the Respondent's brief in support

of his petition for review other than by citation to the appropriate page

numbers in the record as required by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure

9.21O(b). Of course, to do so, the record must be prepared as required by

Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200, and the Respondent has not

found nor has the Florida Bar cited any provision in the Rules Regulating the

Florida Bar which provides that the record is not required to be prepared in

accordance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200 or that this rule

does not apply to this Court's review of disciplinary proceedings.

13. In addition, the record shows that several of the exhibits submitted by the

Respondent to the referee are not included in the case file.

14. The respondent has diligently filed this motion, and the Respondent and his

clients will suffer extreme prejudice if this motion is not granted. The

Florida Bar would not suffer any prejudice if this motion i s granted.

15. The record shows that this Court has not yet issued its mandate in this action

and that the Florida Bar has not responded to any of the motions filed by the

Respondent on July 27,2007.

 Standard of Law

16. Rule 3-7.7 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar provides the procedure

for review of reports and judgments entered by a referee in disciplinary

proceedings.

17. Pursuant to Rule 3-7.7(f), the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure apply to

petitions for review of disciplinary proceedings before the Supreme Court of

Florida unless such rules are inconsistent with Rule 3-7.7.

18. The Rules Regulating the Florida Bar do not provide that Florida Rules of

Appellate Procedure 9.020,9.200,9.210,9.300,9.330, or 9.420 do not apply

in disciplinary proceedings nor do the Bar Rules contain provisions that are

inconsistent with or modify these Appellate Rules, and therefore, the Florida

Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.020,9.200,9.210,9.300,9.330,and 9.420

are applicable to this motion.

19. "All rules prescribed for court procedure are binding on the court and

its clerk as well as on litigants and their counsel." Esch v. Forster, 127

So. 336,336 (Fla. 1930). (Emphasis added.) "The burden of proving that

observance of the rules of practice has been waived is upon the party

claiming the waiver." Id at 337.

20. "We have emphasized time and again that "[tlhe touchstone of due process

is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government,"

 Wolffv.McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539,558,94 S.Ct. 2963,2976,41 L.Ed.2d

935 (1974), whether the fault lies in a denial of fundamental procedural

fairness, see, e.g., Fuentes v. Shevin, ..., or in the exercise of power

without any reasonable justification in the service of a legitimate

governmental objective, see, e.g., Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S., at 331, 106

S.Ct., at 664 (the substantive due process guarantee protects against

government power arbitrarily and oppressively exercised)." County of

Sacramento v. Lewis, 118 S. Ct. 1708,1716 (1998). (Emphasis added.)

21. A Florida appellate court has jurisdiction to consider a motion for

extraordinary relief if it is filed before the appellate court has issued its

mandate. Regan v. ITT Industrial Credit Co., 469 So.2d 1387, 1390 (Fla. 1st

DCA 1984).

Legal Argument

I. The rules do not allow for entry of an order which deprives the Respondent

of the rights afforded by the rules concerning motions for rehearing, and

therefore, the order disbarring the Respondent should be vacated.

22. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330(a) provides that a motion for

rehearing may be filed within 15 days of an order or within such other time

set by the Court. However, Rule 9.330 does not authorize the Court to
 eliminate the right to file a motion for rehearing except pursuant to Rule

9.330(d) in circumstances not applicable to this proceeding.

23. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(i) provides that if a timely

motion for rehearing is filed, then the order shall not be deemed rendered

until such motion is resolved. Furthermore, Rule 9.020(i) does not authorize

the Court to change the effective date of rendition of an order.

24. "All rules prescribed for court procedure are binding on the court and

its clerk as well as on litigants and their counsel." Esch v. Forster, 127

So. 336,336 (Fla. 1930). (Emphasis added.)

25. However, the Clerk of this Court entered an order on July 12,2007 which

indicated that the Respondent was permanently disbarred and which

provided that a motion for rehearing shall not delay the effective date of this

order even though no such relief was requested by the Florida Bar.

26. As the applicable rules do not allow for entry of an order which deprives the

Respondent of the rights afforded by the rules concerning motions for

rehearing and as the Flarida Bar did not even seek such relief, the order

disbarring the Respondent violates due process and should be vacated.

11. The Clerk of this Court failed to serve the order disbarring the

Respondent as required by the rules and the dictates of due process, and

therefore, the order disbarring the Respondent should be vacated.

27. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.420(b) requires service of a copy of

all documents filed under these rules either before or immediately aRer

filing.

28. "All rules prescribed for court procedure are binding on the court and

its clerk as well as on litigants and their counsel." Esch v. Forster, 127

So. 336,336 (Fla. 1930). (Emphasis added.)

29. Notice is an essential element necessary for the enforcement of any order,

and proof of service is critical. Suggs v. State, 795 So.2d 1028, 1030 (Fla.

2d DCA 2001).

30. When a judgment or order has not been timely served, it should be vacated

so that the prejudiced party is not deprived of rights afforded by the rules of

procedure and procedural due process. See, e.g., Gibson v. Buice, 381 So.2d

349,350-35 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) citing Rogers v. First National Bank at

Winter Park, 232 So.2d 377,378 (Fla. 1970).

31 . "For more than a century the central meaning of procedural due

process has been clear: 'Parties whose rights are to be affected are

entitled to be heard; and in order that they may enjoy that right they

must first be notified.' Baldwin v. Hale, 1 Wall. 223,233, 17 L.Ed 53 1.

See Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U.S. 274,23 L.Ed. 914; Hovey v. Elliott, 167

U.S. 409, 17 S.Ct. 841,42 L.Ed. 215; Grannis v. Oredean, 234 U.S. 385,34
 S.Ct 779,58 L.Ed. 1363. It is eyually fundamental that the right to

notice and an opportunity to be heard 'must be granted at a meaningful

time and in a meaningful manner.' Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545,

552,85 S.Ct. 1187, 1191, 14 L.Ed.2d 62." Fuentes v. Shevin,92 S. Ct.

1983,1994 (1972). (Emphasis added).

32. To date the Respondent still has not received a copy of the order entered by

the Clerk of this Court on July 12,2007 indicating that the Respondent is

permanently disbarred.

33. In addition, the Florida Bar's letter dated July 19,2007 did not contain a

copy of the order permanently disbarring the Respondent, and therefore, it

appears that the member of the Clerk's office who was responsible for

mailing copies of the orders entered on July 12,2007 also failed to include

this order when mailing the orders entered on July 12,2007 to counsel for

the Florida Bar. The Florida Bar's letter and its enclosures are attached as

Appendix A.

34. As the Clerk failed to serve a copy of the order entered on July 12,2007

permanently disbarring the Respondent to the Respondent and also

apparently to the Florida Bar, the Respondent did not receive timely notice

of such order and was deprived of his right to file a timely motion for

rehearing, and therefore, the order disbarring the Respondent violates due
 process and should be vacated. Furthermore, as the Respondent still has not

been served with a copy of the order disbarring him, such order should not

be enforced.

111. As this Court did not require preparation of an index to the record as

required by the rules and as the record is not complete, the Respondent has

been deprived of due process, and therefore, the order disbarring the

Respondent should be vacated.

35. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200 requires an index to the record to

be prepared by the clerk of the lower court.

36. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.210(b) requires the parties to cite to

the appropriate page numbers of the record in their briefs; however, without

preparation of an index that cannot be done.

37. The Respondent's Motion for Clarification of this Court's order entered on

May 14,2007 pointed out that previous orders entered in this action had not

required the Clerk or the Florida Bar to prepare an index to the record which

made it impossible for the Respondent to cite to the appropriate page

numbers of the record as required by rule 9.210(b). This motion also

pointed out that the order entered on May 16,2006 denied the Respondent's

alternative request to file a brief referring to the documents filed in this

action and allowing the Respondent to include an appendix with key

 documents necessary for this Court's review of this disciplinary proceeding.

Furthermore, this motion pointed out that unless this Court granted the

requested relief, it will have effectively prevented the Respondent from

preparing a proper brief and will have deprived the Respondent of due

process.

38. Moreover, Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(fi(2) states, "If the

court finds the record is incomplete, it shall direct a party to supply the

omitted parts of the record. No proceeding shall be determined, because of

an incomplete record, until an opportunity to supplement the record has been

given." The comment concerning subdivision ( f ) states, "The new rule is

intended to ensure that appellate proceedings will be decided on their

merits.. ..*,

39. Rule 3-7.6(n)(2) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar states, "The record

shall include all items properly filed in the cause including pleadings,

recorded testimony, if transcribed, exhibits in evidence, and the report of the

referee."

40. Due process requires a complete record on appeal. See, e.g., Thomas v.

State, 828 So.2d 456,457 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) and Berube v. State, 771

Sodd 1263 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

41. "An accurate and comprehensive record of the proceedings below is

absolutely essential to fair and efficient appellate review." Haist v.

Scarp, 366 So.2d 402,404 (Fla. 1978). (Emphasis added.) "This Court

should provide every incentive to parties to develop and preserve an

adequate record." Id.

42. "All rules prescribed for court procedure are binding on the court and

its clerk as well as on litigants and their counsel." Esch v. Forster, 127

So. 336,336 (Fla. 1930). (Emphasis added.) "The burden of proving that

observance of the rules of practice has been waived is upon the party

claiming the waiver." Id at 337.

43. "A duty evolves upon the attorneys for both appellant and appellee to see to

it that a record is sent here which can be used with a minimum of time loss."

Lithgow Funeral Centers v. Loftin, 60 So.2d 745,746 (Fla. 1952).

44. The record shows that several of the exhibits submitted by the Respondent to

the referee are not included in the case file and that for some period of time

much of the record was stored in the Court's sub-basement rather than being

kept with the file.6

The documents which were stored in the Court's sub-basement included

transcripts, motions, and orders regarding proceedings before the referee which
showed the numerous errors which were committed by the referee. On July 27,
2007, the Respondent discovered that a significant number of exhibits which he
submitted in his defense were still missing fiom the case file.
45. Furthermore, Rule 3-7.7(a)(2) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar states,

"The Supreme Court of Florida shall review all reports and judgments of

referees recommending probation, public reprimand, suspension,

disbarment, or resignation pending disciplinary proceedings." (Emphasis

added.) As the referee, Judge Gregory P. Holder, recommended disbarment

of the Respondent, this Court is required to conduct a review of such

decision, and such review would have shown that the record is incomplete.

46. As no index to the record was prepared as required by the Rule 9.200, the

Respondent was effectively prevented from filing a brief which complied

with the Rule 9.210(b).

47. As the Clerk of this Court entered orders denying the Respondent's

alternative request to file a brief referring to the documents filed in this

action and allowing the Respondent to include an appendix with key

documents necessary for this Court's review of this disciplinary proceeding,

the Respondent was effectively prevented from filing any brief.

48. As no index to the record was prepared as required by the Rule 9.200 and as

the Clerk of this Court failed to store the record transmitted to this Court by

the referee in the case file, the Respondent did not learn that the referee had

failed to transmit all of the Respondent's exhibits to this Court until he

reviewed the case file on July 27,2007, and therefore, the Court did not have
 an opportunity to review the complete case file as required by Rule 3-

7.7(a)(2) and the Respondent was effectively deprived of his right to

supplement the record pursuant to 9.200(0(2).

49. Due to the foregoing, the Respondent was deprived of due process, and

therefore, the order disbarring the Respondent should be vacated.

IV. As the Respondent was deprived of an opportunity to respond or file a

brief after his motions were denied on July 12,2007, the order disbarring the

Respondent violates due process and should be vacated.

50. Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.300(b), service of a

motion shall toll the time schedule of any proceeding until disposition of the

motion except as provided by Rule 9.300(d).

5 1. When considering the of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.300(b), this

Court has held that "The rule is clear on its face that it suspends the time

schedule of any and all proceedings irrespective of the movant." St. Paul

Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America, 675 So.2d

590,592 (Fla. 1996).

52. "For more than a century the central meaning of procedural due

process has been clear: 'Parties whose rights are to be affected are

entitled to be heard; and in order that they may enjoy that right they

must first be notified.' Baldwin v. Hale, 1 Wall. 223,233, 17 L.Ed. 531.

 See Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U.S. 274,23 L.Ed. 914; Hovey v. Elliott, 167

U.S. 409, 17 S.Ct. 841,42 L.Ed. 2 15; Grannis v. Oredean, 234 U.S. 385,34

S.Ct 779,58 L.Ed. 1363. It is equally fundamental that the right to

notice and an opportunity to be heard 'must be granted at a meaningful

time and in a meaningful manner.' Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545,

552,85 S.Ct. 1187, 1191, 14 L.Ed.2d 62." Fuentes v. Shevin, 92 S. Ct.

1983, 1994 (1972). (Emphasis added).

53. On July, 12,2007, the Clerk of this Court issued an order denying the

Respondent's Motion for Clarification of this Court's Order entered on May

14,2007, an order denying the Respondent's Motion to Correct the Docket,

an order denying the Respondent's Motion to Toll Time to File Brief, and an

order dismissing the Respondent's Petition for Review. In addition, the

Respondent has since learned that the Clerk also entered an order disbarring

the Respondent on July 12,2007.

54. However, pursuant to Rule 9.300(d), the time period for filing a brief should

have been tolled and extended to allow the Respondent a meaningful

opportunity to respond or file a brief after the orders were entered denying

his motions on July 12,2007.

55. As the Respondent was deprived of any opportunity to respond after entry of

the orders denying his motions on July 12,2007 and before entry of an order
 disbarring the Respondent on that same date, the Respondent was deprived

of due process by such action, and therefore, the order disbarring the

Respondent should be vacated.

V. As the order disbarring the Respondent was entered by the Clerk of this

Court without any indication that it was supported by at least four Justices, it

may violate Article V, 5 3(a) of the Florida Constitution, and therefore, it

should be vacated.

56. The pertinent part of Article V, § 3(a) of the Florida Constitution states,

"The concurrence of four justices shall be necessary to a decision."

57. However, the orders entered by the Clerk of this Court on July 12,2007 do

not indicate which justices approved of such decisions, and therefore, it

appears that such decisions were not only contrary to the applicable rules but

were also entered in violation of Article V, 5 3(a) of the Florida

~onstitution.'

58. As the names of the Justices who may have authorized the Clerk of this

Court to enter the orders on July 12,2007 are not shown on the record and as

The Respondent previously requested to see the Justices' authorizations for other
orders entered in this proceeding pursuant to Florida's public records laws, but the
Clerk of the Court refised to provide access to such documents. The Clerk of the
Second District Court of Appeal of Florida has also unlawfully issued orders
concerning the Respondent contrary to the judges' directions, without
authorization by the required number of judges, and without any authorization as
shown by the exhibits filed in this action before the referee.
 the Clerk has refused to disclose such Justices' names, if any, the orders

entered on July 12,2007 appear on their face to violate Article V, $3(a) of

the Florida Constitution, and therefore, the order disbarring the Respondent

should be vacated.

VI. As the foregoing shows that this Court should enter an order vacating the

order disbarring the Respondent, this Court should immediately issue an

order staying the enforcement of such order pending the resolution of this

motion in order to avoid irreparable harm to the Respondent and his clients.

59. Notice is an essential element necessary for the enforcement of any order,

and proof of service is critical. Snrggs v. State, 795 So.2d 1028, 1030 (Fla.

2d DCA 2001).

60. When a judgment or order has not been timely served, it should be vacated

so that the prejudiced party is not deprived of rights afforded by the rules of

procedure and procedural due process. See, e.g., Gibson v. Buice, 381 So.2d

349, 350-351 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) citing Rogers v. First National Bank at

Winter Park, 232 So.2d 377,378 (Fla. 1970).

61. "For more than a century the central meaning of procedural due

process has been clear: 'Parties whose rights are to be affected are

entitled to be heard; and in order that they may enjoy that right they

must first be notified.' Baldwin v. Hale, 1 Wall. 223,233, 17 L.Ed. 53 1.

 See Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U.S. 274,23 L.Ed. 914; Hovey v. Elliott, 167

U.S. 409, 17 S.Ct. 841,42 L.Ed 215; Grannis v. Oredean, 234 U.S. 385,34

S.Ct. 779,58 L.Ed. 1363. It is equally fbndarnental that the right to notice

and an opportunity to be heard 'must be granted at a meaningfbl time and in

a meaningful manner.' Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545,552,85 S.Ct.

1187, 1191, 14 L.Ed.2d 62." Fuentes v. Shevin, 92 S. Ct. 1983,1994

(1972). (Emphasis added).

62. "We have emphasized time and again that "[tlhe touchstone of due process

is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government,"

Wolflv. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539,558,94 S.Ct 2963,2976,41 L.Ed.2d

935 (1974), whether the fault lies in a denial of fundamental procedural

fairness, see, e.g., Fuentes v. Shevin, ..., or in the exercise of power

without any reasonable justification in the service of a legitimate

governmental objective, see, e.g., Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S., at 33 1, 106

S.Ct., at 664 (the substantive due process guarantee protects against

government power arbitrarily and oppressively exercised)." County of

Sacramento v. Lewis, 118 S. Ct. 1708, 1716 (1998). (Emphasis added.)

63. The Respondent and his clients will suffer extreme prejudice and irreparable

harm if this motion is not granted.

64. The Florida Bar would not suffer any prejudice if this motion is granted.
65. As the foregoing shows that this Court should enter an order vacating the

order disbarring the Respondent and that such order should not be enforced,

this Court should immediately issue an order staying the enforcement of

such order pending the resolution of this motion in order to avoid irreparable

harm to the Respondent and his clients.

WHEREFORE, the Respondent respectfblly requests that this Court issue

an emergency order staying enforcement of the order disbarring the Respondent

pending the Court's resolution of this motion, issue an order vacating the order

entered on July 12,2007 disbarring the Respondent, and issue an order granting the

Respondent a reasonable time of at least twenty days in which to file his brief,

allowing the Respondent to supplement the record, allowing the Respondent to file

a brief referring to the documents filed in this action, and allowing the Respondent

to include an appendix with key documents necessary for this Court's review of

this discipljnary proceeding.

Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing motion
and the facts stated in it are true.

P '_-'
Mark A. Adams, Esquire Date
Fla. Bar No. 0193178
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof has been served by U.S. Maii to

Jodi A. Thompson, Assistant Staff Counsel for the Florida Bar at 5521 W. Spruce

Street, Suite C49; Tampa, FI, 33607 and to Staff Counsel for the Florida Bar at 651

E. Jefferson Street; Tallahassee, Florida 32399 on this '7k+ day of August,

.,
Mark A. Adams, Esquire
Fla. Bar No. 0193 178

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

1HEREBY CERTIFY that this document complies with the requirements of

Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.210(a)(2).

il
Mark A. Adams, Esquire
Fla. Bar No. 0193 178
P.O. Box 1078
Valrico, FL 33595
Telephone: 813-654-1235
Appendix A
 July 19,2007

Mr. Mark A. Adams

Post Office Box 1078
Valrico. FL 33595-1078

Re: The Florida Bar v. Mark A. Adams

TFB File No. 2004- 10,132(6A)

Dear Mr. Adams:

Pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court of Florida dated July 12, 2007, you were permanently
disbarred effective August 13,2007. The filing of a motion for rehearing does not alter the effective
date of the disbarment. The court's order also assessed costs in the amount of $8,948.32. Your costs
are due in this oflice no later than August 27, 2007. A Failure to Pay Notice providing important
information relating to cost assessments is enclosed.

You must follow the provis~onsof Rule 3-5.l(g). A copy of the order must be provided to your
clients, opposing counsel, and certain courts, and you must provide an affidavit to us verifying that
this has been done. A form affidavit is enclosed. The executed affidavit must be provided to this
office within 30 days of the court's order. If you had no clients or pending matters at the time the
order was served in this case. the affidavit should so state. Should you accept employment with a
Florida lawyer or law firm, additional requirements apply. Please see Rule 3-6.1 in this respect. In
order to avoid an appearance of being a lawyer in good standing, you must eliminate all m d ~ c ~ofa
attorney status (telephone listings, stationery, checks, business cards, office signs, etc.).

Adam A. Stetson, Paralegal, will he your contact person at The Florida Bar for issues relating to your
compliance with the court's order. Mr. Stetson may be contacted at (850) 561-5774 should there he
any questions regarding this matter.

Sincerely,

Sheryl Remien Walker, CP, CFLA

Paralegal. Lawyer Regulation

Enclosures - Failure to Pay Notice, 3-5.l(g) Affidavit

cc. Jodi Anderson Thompson, Bar Counsel, Tampa Branch Office

 FAILURE TO PAY NOTICE

'The Supreme Court of Florida has entered an order assessing costs, fees, imposing fee arbitration
and/or restitution obligations. The requirements of this order create certain obligations of which
you should be aware.

Making Payment

Please send your check or money order made payable to "The Florida Bar" to the attention of
Adam A. Stetson, The Florida Bar, 651 East Jefferson Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300.
Please place The Florida Bar file number on the check so we may extend proper credit for the
payment.

You may also make payment of fees and/or costs with your credit card (Visa and Mastercard
only) by submitting the enclosed credit c a d form. The entire balance must be paid; no partial
payment will he accepted.

Delinquent Costs

Discipli~~ary costs are deemed delinquent unless they are paid within 30 days after the
disciplinary order becomes final. Usually, that is forty-five (45) days after the date of the court
order. The time for payment may be extended by The Board of Governors (hereafter the Board)
for good cause shown. In order for the Board to approve an extension of time a payment plan
must be requested and certain financial information disclosed. Ordinarily payment plans are not
approved unless extreme financial hardship is proven through financial affidavits that include a
statement of assets and liabilities.

Delinquent Fees

Fees are deemed delinquent unless they are paid within 90 days after the court's order becomes
final. The time for payment may be extended by The Board of Governors (hereafter the Board)
for good cause shown.

Delinquent Fee Arbitration Award@)

Fee arbitration award(s) are deemed delinquent unless they are paid within 90 days after the
recommendation becomes final. The time for payment may be extended by the Board for good
cause shown.

Delinquent Restitution

Restitution is deemed delinquent unless it is made within the time Frame and in thc manner
provided by the court in the order or the opinio~iimposing the obligation. As in the case of costs,
the time for making restitution may be extended by the Board for good cause shown. The same
disclosure and the same procedures for obtaining the Board's approval of an extension of time
for making restitution apply as in a request for extension of time in which to make payment for
disciplinary costs,
Effect of Delinquency

If fees, costs or restitution become delinquent, you will be deemed a delinquent member of The
Florida Bar and as such will not be entitled to practice law in Florida until such time as the
delinquency is cured. Cure of the delinquency will include milking payment of all required
obligations, providing proof of payment, and filing a petition for removal of delinquency status.
'Thereafter the petition will be reviewed and, if appropriate, the delinquency will be removed.

Lapse of Membership Status

Any member who remains delinquent for a period of five years or longer will lose bar
membership. A member whose membership has lapsed may return to the practice of law in
Florida only through application to the Florida Board of Bar Examiners, which will include
taking and passing the bar examination and successful completion of the character and fitness
evaluation.

Recording Cost Judgment

If costs become delinquent as described above The Florida Bar may record the order as a
judgment in the appropriate public records. The judgment will remain on those records until a
satisfaction is recorded upon payment of costs and accrued interest.

Maintaining Contact

There may be important information that we need to communicate to you after the court order
becomes final. For this reason, it is important for you to maintain an accurate mailing address,
telephone number and other contact information even during the terms of a suspension. In fact,
The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar mandate that all members of The Florida Bar keep current
contact information on file.

If you have any questions about these issues please feel kee to contact Adam A. Stetson by
telephone at (800) 342-8060, ext. 5774
 The Florida Bar
Lawyer Regulation - Headquarters Office
Authorization for Payment by Credit Card
Naine
Bar Number
Address
City State Zip
Phone
Fax
E-mail

The Florida Bar File No.

Date of Assessment
Amount Assessed
Payment Amount
Credit Card Number
Expiration Date n Visa Mastercard
(Check One)

I hereby authorize The Florida Bar to charge $ to the credit card listed
above.

Signature Date

Please submit this form to Adam A. Stetson at The Florida Bar, 65 1 East Jefferson
Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399. If you have any questions, please contact Mr.
Stctson at (850) 561-5774 or at astetson@flabar.org.

-
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
TEKNO. AM~UNT
22102 9
31402 -- $
22103 $
ENHANCE $
44002 $
400L $
4402 $ 1
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF

AFFIDAVIT

I, Mark A. Adams, affer being duly sworn, say:

This affidavit is submitted pursuant to Rule 3-5.l(g) of the Rules of Discipline in conjunction
with the decision in The Florida Bar v. Mark A. Adarns, SC-051149; The Florida Bar File No.
2004-10,132(6A).

1. I had no clients(s) or matter(s) pending at the time of the order directing me to

cease the practice of law.

-2.a. I have furnished a copy of the court order to all my clients with matters pending
when the court's order was served on me; and

b. to all opposing counsel or co-counsel in the matters listed in 2a. above; and

c. To all courts, tribunals, or adjudicative agencies before which I am counsel of

record.

d. The names and addresses of all persons and entities that have been hmished with
such notification are indicated on the attached list (Exhibit A), and such is a
complete listing of all persons and entities notified pursuant to this rule.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETII NO?'.

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this day of ,2007.

Notary Public

Print, type, or stamp commission name of

notary public

Personally known to me or produced the following identification:

Type of Identification

Return to: The Florida Bar

Attention: Adam A. Stetson, Paralegal
65 1 East Jefferson Street
'Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300