Florida Supreme Court disbars ex-Miami-Dade judge – NBC 6 South Florida

Pointing to what it described as a “deliberate pattern of dishonesty,” the Florida Supreme Court on Thursday disbarred a former Miami-Dade County judge who was accused of wrongdoing in his campaign-finance reports and making misrepresentations to a judicial-nominating panel.

The Supreme Court, in a 37-page opinion, unanimously upheld a referee’s recommendation that Miguel Fernando Mirabal should be prevented from practicing law in the state for violating rules of The Florida Bar.

The allegations stemmed from an unsuccessful 2018 campaign for a county-judge position and a 2019 application filed with a judicial nominating commission as Mirabal sought another judgeship. Mirabal was ultimately elected as a county judge in 2020 but resigned after less than four months on the bench amid an investigation.

“Mirabal engaged in a deliberate pattern of dishonesty,” the Supreme Court opinion said. “He deliberately disregarded his statutory obligations as a judicial candidate and repeatedly certified as correct campaign finance reports he knew were false. He also filed an application with the JNC (judicial nominating commission) in which he deliberately omitted and misrepresented material information about his background.”

But Mirabal’s attorneys, in a brief filed last year at the Supreme Court, said he should be found guilty of “negligent misconduct” and suspended for one year, rather than facing disbarment.

“It is our position that the referee’s determination that these errors were intentional, was erroneous,” the brief said. “The record below clearly does not support such a finding. Therefore, the referee’s sanction recommendation of disbarment is also not supported by the record, especially in light of the mitigation present in this case which includes, a lack of a prior disciplinary record, overwhelming character testimony, the imposition of other penalties (inclusive of resigning from the bench), and his deep remorse for his actions.”

The campaign-finance issue involved allegations about a series of amendments that were made in Mirabal’s finance reports before and after a qualifying period for the 2018 judicial race.

Essentially, Mirabal was accused of improperly making it appear before qualifying that he had more money in his campaign account than he actually did — which could have given an inaccurate picture to other potential candidates. After qualifying, amendments reduced the amounts of money shown.

Mirabal lost the 2018 judicial race, and his opponent, Milena Abreu, filed a Bar grievance about his conduct. Mirabal also was ordered in 2019 by the Florida Elections Commission to pay a $2,000 fine because of the inaccurate finance reports, according to Thursday’s opinion.

“The referee ultimately found that the errors in Mirabal’s campaign finance reports were too numerous and far too politically advantageous to be a mere accident,” the Supreme Court opinion said. “He concluded that Mirabal knowingly and repeatedly certified the over-inflated numbers in his campaign finance reports as accurate, allowing them to go uncorrected during the period when other candidates could enter the … race for judicial office.”

After losing the 2018 race, Mirabal filed an application in 2019 with a judicial nominating commission seeking appointment to a county judgeship. Such commissions recommend candidates to the governor for making appointments to open judicial seats.

Mirabal, who did not receive the appointment, was accused of misrepresenting information to the commission. For example, the Supreme Court opinion said that Mirabal, in responding to a question on the application, did not disclose that he had been a party in six lawsuits.

“Mirabal claimed that he filled out the application from memory, and that the cases were negligently omitted from his application,” the Supreme Court opinion said. “The referee found Mirabal’s explanation that he simply ‘forgot’ about the six cases was not credible, particularly given that the omitted lawsuits contained negative comments and findings about Mirabal that would cause the JNC to look unfavorably on his application.”

The brief filed last year by Mirabal’s attorneys said he had been a member of the Bar since 2004 and had no disciplinary record.

“The respondent’s (Mirabal’s) life has been about service to others,” the brief said. “His parents, both of whom were political prisoners in Cuba, instilled in the respondent this desire, from an early age, through significant volunteer work in his community.”