The Florida Supreme Court has declined to reinstate an attorney who was suspended in 2022 for filing more than 3,000 claims from smokers against tobacco firms without properly investigating the cases.
The high court on March 14 rejected a court referee’s report recommending the reinstatement of Jacksonville attorney Norwood Wilner, who was suspended for 91 days for filing what are called Engle-progeny claims. The cases came from a decertified class action in the 1990s against tobacco companies and consisted of individualized clams that had to meet certain legal requirements.
Wilner filed the claims without investigating or researching the facts of each case and for “knowingly misrepresenting the viability of the claims to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,” according to the state Supreme Court’s decision.
The Florida Bar challenged the referee’s conclusion in the discipline case because Wilner was not “actively supervised” during his suspension, as required by rules regulating the Florida Bar, the high court’s opinion says.
“Accordingly, we find that Wilner failed to demonstrate strict compliance with our disciplinary order, and that as a result, he has failed to establish rehabilitation …” the opinion states. “The Bar has satisfied its burden in this case, and we find that the referee’s recommendation to reinstate Wilner to the practice of law is unjustified.”
The attorney representing Wilner did not respond to a request for comment, but a spokesperson for the Florida Bar said it would be at least another 12 months before the attorney could attempt to be reinstated to the practice of law in the state.
“No person may file a petition for reinstatement within one year following an adverse judgment on a petition for reinstatement filed by or on behalf of the same person,” Florida Bar Rule 3-7.10(k) states.
After he was suspended, Wilner sold his law firm in Jacksonville to a St. Petersburg attorney, Howard Acosta, for $100, with the understanding that Wilner could buy back the firm for $200 once reinstated, according to the Supreme Court’s decision. Acosta then became a “silent owner” as Wilner remained employed with the firm, coming in only a few times per week to discuss general strategy, but not case specifics, with the firm’s attorneys.
Acosta’s supervisory role over Wilner did not go beyond “unstructured” phone calls every week or two, according to the high court’s opinion.
“It is clear from our review of the record that, regardless of the amount of work he either did or did not do for JLG (Jax Litigation Group), Wilner was not actively supervised in all aspects of his employment with the firm,” the opinion says. “His supervisor, Acosta, lived across the state in St. Petersburg and was not actively involved in any of JLG’s cases or Wilner’s work at the firm.”
The court’s judgment also allowed for the recovery of court and attorney costs from Wilner, in the amount of $2,281, according to the terms of the decision.
In his defense, Wilner contended that the occasional telephone calls he had was Acosta did satisfy Florida Bar rules because they were proportional to how little time he spent working for the JLG Firm while he was suspended.