1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee)

THE FLORIDA BAR, CASE NO. SC05-437 Petitioner, The Florida Bar File Nos.: 20050026(02) v. 20050027(02) 20050037(02) ADDYS T. WALKER 20050054(02) d/b/a PARALEGAL FIRM 20050066(02) OF NORTH FLORIDA, 20050102(02) 20070007(02) Respondents. ___________________________________/

REPORT OF THE REFEREE I. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS

Pursuant to the undersigned being duly appointed as referee to conduct

proceedings herein according to Rule 10-7.1(b)(6), Rules Regulating The Florida Bar,

the following proceedings occurred:

A Petition Against the Unlicensed Practice of Law was filed by The Florida

Bar on March 11, 2005. On July 18, 2005, Respondent T. Addys Walker filed an

Answer to the Petition. Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition and Notice of Filing

thereof on July 27, 2005. Respondent filed an Answer to the Amended Petition on

October 3, 2005. On November 14, 2005, the undersigned was appointed referee in

2

this matter.

Petitioner propounded Interrogatories, a Request for Production and a Request

for Admissions to Respondent. Respondent did not respond and Petitioner filed a

Motion to Compel Discovery on February 3, 2006. A hearing was held on Petitioner's

Motion and on March 16, 2006, the undersigned entered an Order Compelling

Discovery. Respondent thereafter complied with the discovery requests.

On March 16, 2006, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss. Petitioner filed a

response. A hearing was held and an Order Denying Respondent's Motion to Dismiss

was entered on May 17, 2006.

On April 13, 2006, the undersigned filed an Agreed Motion to Extend Time to

File Report of Referee. On May 4, 2006, the Supreme Court of Florida granted the

Motion.

Petitioner noticed the taking of several depositions. Respondent objected to the

taking of his deposition and to the deposition of one of the witnesses. A hearing was

held and Respondent's Objections were denied on June 6, 2006. Other individuals

served with a Subpoena Duces Tecum without deposition responded.

On May 23, 2006, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of

Jurisdiction Over the Person. On June 6, 2006, the undersigned entered an Order

denying Respondent's Motion.

3

On June 14, 2006, an Agreed Motion to Extend Time to File Report of Referee

was filed. The Agreed Motion was granted on July 6, 2006.

On July 28, 2006, Petitioner filed a Second Amended Complaint and a Motion

to Amend. Respondent filed an Objection to Petitioner's Motion to Amend. On

August 17, 2006, the undersigned entered an Order Permitting Petitioner's Motion to

Amend. Respondent filed an Answer to the Second Amended Petition on August 21,

2006.

On August 3, 2006, Petitioner filed a Motion to Compel Discovery from

Cristin Erica White. The Motion was granted on August 17, 2006.

Trial in this matter was set for September 5 and 6, 2006. On August 31, 2006,

witness Charles E. Hobbs, II, Esquire, filed an Emergency Motion for Protective Order

and Request to Quash Subpoena. On September 1, 2006, witness Richard Keith Alan

II, Esquire, filed a Motion for Protective Order. The Referee heard and denied both

motions during pretrial proceedings on September 5, 2006, following lengthy argument

and, in regard to Mr. Alan’s motion, a lengthy proffer. It must be noted that Mr. Alan’s

assertion of the attorney-client privilege was carefully considered by the Referee, and

Mr. Alan was compelled to testify regarding certain relevant matters only after the

Referee concluded that they did not fall within the privilege. Nonetheless, on

September 5, 2006, Richard Keith Alan II filed a Motion to Stay Cause During

4

Supreme Court’s Review of Referee’s Order Denying Attorney Richard Keith Alan

II’s Motion for Protective Order. The Referee denied Mr. Alan’s motion for a stay,

and ordered him to provide the testimony at issue in the proffer. The trial was held on

September 5 and 6, 2006, as scheduled. On September 6, 2006, Mr. Alan gave

testimony in the matter. On September 12, 2006, Petitioner filed a response to Mr.

Alan’s motions as the motions were thereby moot.

Monica Armster Rainge, Esquire, appeared for the Florida Bar, and

Respondent Addys T. Walker appeared in these proceedings pro se. The undersigned

Referee received the testimony of witnesses and has considered all of the

aforementioned pleadings, attachments thereto, and exhibits received in evidence. At

the conclusion of the Final Hearing, the Referee invited The Florida Bar and

Respondent Walker to each submit a proposed Report of Referee. The Referee has

received and carefully considered both proposed Reports.

All of the aforementioned pleadings, attachments, motions, exhibits received in

evidence, and this report constitute the record in this case and are forwarded to the

Supreme Court of Florida.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Jurisdictional Statement. Respondent, at all times material herein,

was not and is not a member of The Florida Bar, and was not therefore licensed to

5

engage in the practice of law in the State of Florida.

B. Narrative Summary of Case:

Petitioner's Second Amended Complaint contains six separate counts.

Each count alleges a separate instance of Mr. Walker’s unlicensed practice of law,

which can be summarized as follows:

1. COUNT I asserts that from about February, 2004 through April, 2004,

Respondent Addys Walker offered to provide legal services and provided legal

services to Willie Hart, then an inmate at the Leon County Jail. An essential aspect of

this count is that Mr. Walker allegedly told Mr. Hart that he represented the Law

Offices of Richard Keith Alan, a licensed Florida attorney, and would secure Mr.

Alan’s services for Mr. Hart. Mr. Hart agreed, and authorized transfer of his 1997

Honda Accord automobile to Respondent as a retainer. Although Mr. Hart was

eventually represented by attorney Erica White, he maintains that he never intended to

hire her, and understood that he was hiring Mr. Alan, based solely on Respondent

Walker’s representations. During the period of time that Mr. Walker was in contact

with Mr. Hart, Mr. Walker allegedly made numerous statements to Mr. Hart about his

criminal prosecution, gave him legal advice about those proceedings, and provided Mr.

Hart with “options” regarding his case. Mr. Hart entered a plea to a fifteen year

mandatory-minimum sentence, and was accompanied to court by Ms. White.

6

2. In COUNT II, The Florida Bar alleged that in or around August, 2004, Mr.

Walker told Terrance Coley and John Cozart, employees of Service Express, LLC, that

he was “representing” Service Express in an attempt to secure monies owed to the

company and its employees. Service Express was a business in which Mr. Walker and

an individual named Mike Geoghegan had a financial interest. In regard to the dispute,

Respondent allegedly said he was suing the apartment complexes that had failed to

pay Service Express for painting services, and offered to negotiate with those

complexes on behalf of Mr. Coley and Mr. Cozart for unpaid wages they were owed.

Mr. Coley and Mr. Cozart believed that the Respondent was an attorney.

3. COUNT III alleges that Respondent Walker operates a business under the

name of “Paralegal Firm of North Florida, ” and that Mr. Walker and the Paralegal

Firm of North Florida are providing legal services directly to the public. The Florida

Bar asserts in this count that neither Respondent Walker nor the Paralegal Firm of

North Florida are working under the supervision of a member of the Florida Bar, nor is

Mr. Walker performing specifically delegated substantive legal work for which a

member of the Florida Bar is responsible. Therefore, The Florida Bar claims that

neither meets the definition of a paralegal under Rule 10-2.1(b) of the Rules

Regulating The Florida Bar. The Florida Bar also maintains that use of the name,

“Paralegal Firm of North Florida” constitutes the unlicensed practice of law under Rule

10-2.1(a)(2).

7

4. In COUNT IV, The Florida Bar claims that in or around March, 2003,

Respondent met with John Hill, Jr. to discuss his criminal case. Respondent advised

Mr. Hill that he would provide legal services to Mr. Hill, including giving him legal

advice. Respondent advised Mr. Hill to hire Paul Srygley, a licensed Florida attorney,

to represent him in his court proceedings. In exchange for such services, Respondent

was paid $700.00. Mr. Hill also paid Paul Srygley $6000.00 for legal services.

5. COUNT V involves actions of Mr. Walker in or around August, 2004, in

regard to his contact with Ms. Linda Shabazz. Respondent was contacted by Ms.

Shabazz about a legal matter involving Ms. Shabazz’s son, who was at that time

incarcerated in Miami, Florida. Respondent offered to provide legal advice and

services to Linda Shabazz to assist her son. In exchange for such services, Respondent

was paid $1200.00.

6. In COUNT VI, Mr. Walker is accused of offering to provide legal advice

and services to Christopher Watson regarding his criminal matter. Mr. Walker’s

contact with Mr. Watson occurred in October 2005. In exchange for such services,

Respondent Walker was allegedly paid approximately $25,000.00 by Christopher

Watson, his father, and his girlfriend. Mr. Watson firmly believed that Mr. Walker

was a lawyer, and that Mr. Walker was handling his impending criminal prosecution.

Respondent learned that Mr. Watson was a federal fugitive and told Mr. Watson that

he would negotiate with federal authorities to protect Mr. Watson from apprehension

8

and conviction. Respondent allegedly provided housing at Respondent’s home and a

fake identification card to Mr. Watson. Mr. Watson eventually learned that

Respondent was not a lawyer, and paid another $11,000 to hire William Bubsey, a

licensed Florida attorney, to handle his case. Mr. Watson is currently incarcerated in

the Federal Detention Center in Tallahassee, Florida.

C . Findings of Fact and Conclusions Of Law

In regard to each of the counts described above, the Referee makes the following

findings of fact and conclusions of law:

COUNT I

The Referee finds that Respondent Addys Walker held himself out as a

paralegal working for Richard Keith Alan II and told Mr. Willie Hart that he would

secure Mr. Alan’s services for him. Mr. Alan testified, however, that Respondent was

not working under his supervision or at his instruction when Mr. Walker made such

representations to Willie Hart. Respondent, along with Cristin Erica White, a licensed

Florida attorney, visited Mr. Hart at the Leon County Jail to discuss his case. Mr. Hart

acknowledges that Ms. White came to the jail, but his understanding was that Ms.

White was only assisting Mr. Alan in his efforts on Mr. Hart’s behalf. Mr. Hart and

Mr. Hart’s girlfriend, Dorothy Thomas, subsequently signed a retainer agreement with

Ms.White for $37,000.00, but again, Mr. Hart thought that this very large fee was

destined for Mr. Alan and not the inexperienced Ms. White. In fact, Respondent

9

Walker negotiated said fee and received approximately $5,000.00 from Ms. White for

his “services”, although it is not clear what Mr. Walker did for Ms. White to justify a

$5,000 fee. In his visits with Mr. Hart at the jail, Respondent told Mr. Hart that he

should accept a fifteen year plea offer because federal prosecutors had called him about

Mr. Hart’s case, and that federal prosecution could result in a life sentence. Mr.

Walker further advised Mr. Hart that he would receive a furlough before the sentence

started if he accepted the plea deal, and that he could arrange for Mr. Hart’s sentence to

be “commuted” to probation in the future. On April 13, 2004, Mr. Hart, represented by

Ms. White, entered a plea of guilty and received a mandatory-minimum sentence of

fifteen years.

From the testimony of Mr. Hart and Ms. Dorothy Thomas, Mr. Hart’s girlfriend,

Mr. Walker clearly gave substantive legal advice to Mr. Hart. What is especially

pernicious about Respondent’s interaction with both Mr. Hart and Ms. Thomas was his

ability to secure their confidence, to reassure them, and to then suggest legal avenues to

pursue in resolving Mr. Hart’s criminal prosecution. Regrettably, all of these

communications with Mr. Hart were intended to, and did, lead Mr. Hart to the

conclusion that Addys Walker was heavily involved in his case, when he was not. Mr.

Walker also specifically told Mr. Hart that he was communicating directly with law

enforcement, the state attorney’s office, and the federal government about Mr. Hart’s

case. Mr. Walker then laid out “options” for Mr. Hart’s consideration. Those

10

discussions included specific assurances by Mr. Walker that after serving six years in

prison, Mr. Walker would see that Mr. Hart’s sentence was “commuted” to probation;

that Mr. Walker could ensure that Mr. Hart was placed in a prison facility close to his

home; and that if Mr. Hart accepted the State’s plea offer, the federal government

would not pursue a case against him. The Referee has considered the testimony of

both Mr. Hart, who is currently incarcerated in the Florida Department of Corrections,

and Ms. Thomas, and finds them both to be credible witnesses.

Mr. Hart’s situation presents a perfect example of the devastating effect of the

unlicensed practice of law. Mr. Hart was facing serious criminal charges, and was

scared and desperate. Mr. Walker cleverly used his knowledge of the legal system to

gain Mr. Hart’s confidence. He recommended Mr. Alan, and praised Mr. Alan’s great

successes in cases like Mr. Hart’s. Both Ms. Thomas and Mr. Hart testified adamantly

that they believed that the fees conveyed to Mr. Walker were to secure the services of

Mr. Alan, not attorney Erica White. Those fees ultimately amounted to $12,000 in

cash, and conveyance of a 1997 Honda. Ms. White acknowledges receipt of the

$12,000 and says she forgave the additional $25,000 owed, but claims to know nothing

about the vehicle. The evidence establishes that the vehicle is currently titled in the

name of Mr. Walker’s “partner,” Linda Bedell. Although Ms. White disputes Mr.

Hart’s testimony that he never intended to, and did not, hire Erica White to represent

him, the Referee accepts the testimony of Ms. Thomas and Mr. Hart that they

11

understood only that Ms. White would be assisting Mr. Alan with the case. The

Referee cannot, in this proceeding, resolve the mystery of how Erica White actually

became Mr. Hart’s lawyer and whether Mr. Alan had anything to do with Mr. Walker’s

representations or with Mr. Hart’s case. It is nonetheless clear that, based on Mr.

Walker’s representations, Mr. Hart thought that Erica White was “doing legwork” for

Mr. Alan, and that accepting the State’s plea offer was Mr. Alan’s idea. Again, Mr.

Hart’s actions were motivated by Mr. Walker’s representations about his “discussions”

with federal and state authorities; those statements apparently lead Mr. Hart to accept a

plea to a mandatory-minimum fifteen year sentence in his case, based largely on Mr.

Walker’s recommendation and his assurances that accepting the plea would preclude

federal prosecution. It is clear that no discussions took place between Mr. Walker and

the authorities, and that any information he possessed about Mr. Hart’s case came from

other sources. Mr. Hart was vulnerable, and Mr. Walker exploited that vulnerability.

In light of the findings set forth above, the Referee concludes that Respondent

Addys Walker engaged in the unlicensed practice of law by providing legal advice to

Willie Hart, including but not limited to, recommendations concerning a plea offer, the

sentence to be received, the possibility of commutation of the sentence, the federal

government’s interest in prosecuting Mr. Hart, and the issue of a furlough. Such

representations were made to both Willie Hart and Ms. Thomas, and they were made

during independent visits to the jail that were not supervised or authorized by Mr.

12

Hart’s attorney in fact, Erica White. Further, Mr. Walker negotiated and secured a fee

for legal services rendered to Mr. Hart, and surreptitiously retained the 1997 Honda

Accord for himself. During the time period involved in Mr. Hart’s situation,

Respondent was not working in a paralegal or investigator capacity for Erica White or

Richard Alan when he engaged in these activities constituting the unlicensed practice

of law.

COUNT II

In this Count, the evidence shows that Respondent had a financial interest in

Service Express, LLC, and told people that he “represented” the business. The record

shows that Respondent negotiated and corresponded with contract employees of

Service Express, LLC, to settle a legal matter involving a wage dispute. At several

meetings, Respondent Walker spoke to agitated employees about the litigation he and

his partner were allegedly initiating to get payment from the apartment complexes

painted by the employees. Mr. Walker was also present when employees were

presented with checks for several hundred dollars, when they had been promised

thousands, and engaged in negotiations with those employees when they expressed

their displeasure about the situation. Mr. John Cozart, one of the painter employees,

testified that he met with Mr. Walker at his office, and that he understood Mr. Walker

to be an attorney acting on behalf of Service Express. Although Mr. Paul Srygley, a

lawyer, was present for at least one of these confrontations, Mr. Cozart nonetheless

13

believed that Mr. Walker was also an attorney, and would work to get the employees

the monies they were owed. Mr. Cozart is adamant that Mr. Walker told him that he

was the “legal representation” for Mike Geoghegan, Mr. Walker’s partner in Service

Express, and Service Express itself. The Court finds Mr. Cozart’s testimony credible.

Based on his conduct and statements about his representation of Service Express, the

Referee finds that Mr. Walker held himself out as a lawyer in his discussions with the

painter employees. Although the Referee acknowledges that Mr. Walker had some

financial interest in the company, and that his status as an “investor” may have caused

some confusion, there is little doubt that he did everything possible to lead the

employees to believe that he had drafted pleadings and was initiating a lawsuit against

the apartment complexes. What is even more troubling is the assertion by one of the

employees that the apartment complexes did in fact pay Service Express for painting

services, but that the employees never received their compensation. The employees’

understanding was that Mr. Walker and Mike Geoghegan kept what was paid, despite

their professed enthusiasm for pursuing the delinquent apartment complex owners in

court. In this sense, Respondent pledged to negotiate with apartment complexes as the

employees’ “representative” to secure the unpaid wages they were owed. The

Supreme Court of Florida has held that it is the unlicensed practice of law for a

nonlawyer to induce a client to rely on the nonlawyer to properly handle a legal matter.

The Florida Bar v. Brumbaugh, 355 So.2d 1186 (Fla. 1978). In The Florida Bar v.

14

Sperry, 140 So. 2d 587, 591 (Fla. 1962), judg. vacated on other grounds, 373 U.S. 379

(1963), the Supreme Court developed the following test to determine whether an

activity is the practice of law:

. . .if the giving of [the] advice and performance of [the] services affect important rights of a person under the law, and if the reasonable protection of the rights and property of those advised and served requires that the persons giving such advice possess legal skill and a knowledge of the law greater than that possessed by the average citizen, then the giving of such advice and the performance of such services by one for another as a course of conduct constitute the practice of law.

Settlement negotiations clearly meet the standards set forth in Sperry, as the

outcome affected the important legal rights of the parties. In The Florida Bar v.

Warren, 655 So.2d 1131 (Fla. 1995), the Supreme Court held that corresponding with

either parties or the attorneys for parties as the representative of a client relative to a

legal matter constituted the practice of law. The giving of advice and assisting others in

the preservation of their rights and interests in matters under the law have universally

been held to be the practice of law. The Florida Bar v. Arango, 461 So. 2d 932, 934

(Fla. 1985); State v. Sperry, 140 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1962), judg. vacated on other

grounds, 373 U.S. 379 (1963). The Referee therefore finds that Mr. Walker’s

statements to the employees about his “representation” of Service Express, his

presentation of papers purporting to be a lawsuit he had prepared against the apartment

complexes, and his assertions that he would fight on the employees’ behalf for their

15

proper compensation all constitute the unlicensed practice of law.

COUNT III

The evidence in this matter shows that the Respondent engaged in the unlicensed

practice of law by using the title paralegal when he was not working under the

supervision of a member of the Florida Bar. Mr. Walker admitted in the pleadings that

he owned and operated the Paralegal Firm of North Florida, at 327 Office Plaza Drive,

Suite 108, in Tallahassee. Respondent held himself out to the public by maintaining a

“law” office, which led members of the public to expect that he was capable of

providing legal services to anyone who entered those offices. Although Mr. Walker

argued at the hearing that he had posted notices in his office stating that he could not

provide legal advice, everything he did fully contravened those postings. In fact, few

people indicated that they had seen the notices. Since it constitutes the unlicensed

practice of law for a nonlawyer to use the title “paralegal, legal assistant, or other

similar term” in providing legal services or legal forms preparation services directly to

the public, the Referee finds that Mr. Walker has violated this proscription.

Respondent clearly held himself out as a paralegal capable of providing legal services

to the public, which is a violation of Rule 10-2.1(b). Rule 10-2.1(b) defines a paralegal

or legal assistant as a person qualified by education, training, or work experience, who

works under the supervision of a member of The Florida Bar and who performs

specifically delegated substantive legal work for which a member of The Florida Bar is

16

responsible. Mr. Walker failed to honor both the intent and clear language of the rule

by using the title “Paralegal Specialist III” on his business card and by using the

designation of paralegal in the name of his business, Paralegal Firm of North Florida.

There is no question that Mr. Walker’s business was based on referrals and word-of-

mouth, and that people regularly entered his office, off the street, seeking legal

assistance. Mr. Walker’s services were clearly offered directly to the public by his

maintaining an office that advertised, on its door, some type of legal services through

the “firm.” Rule 10-2.1(a)(2)states:

It shall constitute the unlicensed practice of law for a person who does not meet the definition of paralegal or legal assistant as set forth elsewhere in these rules to offer or provide legal services directly to the public or for a person who does not meet the definition of paralegal or legal assistant as set forth elsewhere in these rules to use the title paralegal, legal assistant, or other similar term in providing legal services or legal forms preparation services directly to the public.

The Referee specifically finds that Mr. Walker’s use of the name, “Paralegal Firm of

North Florida,” the maintenance of an office accessible by the public with the “firm”

name on the door, and his practices in seeking and meeting directly with members of

17

the public seeking legal advice and assistance constitutes the unlicensed practice of

law. Further, Respondent engaged in activities that constituted the unlicensed practice

of law when he provided legal services that were not supervised by a member of the

Florida Bar.

In addition, Respondent Walker regularly engaged in activities which were

beyond the scope of any supervision provided by members of the Florida Bar for

whom he worked. Every attorney who testified at the hearing said that most of the

specific acts inquired about were done by Mr. Walker without the attorney’s

authorization. Even where an attorney did retain Mr. Walker to assist on a case, Mr.

Walker exceeded the requested services; for example, Richard Keith Alan testified that

after authorizing Respondent to gather medical and police reports for Mr. Alan, Mr.

Walker communicated directly with an insurer about the case. Mr. Alan testified that

such communications were outside the scope of Mr. Walker’s employment, and were

not authorized. Such actions are just one example of numerous acts of Mr. Walker

constituting the unlicensed practice of law.

COUNT IV Based on the evidence provided at the hearing, the Referee finds that

Respondent committed several acts constituting the unlicensed practice of law when he

provided legal assistance to John Hill, Jr. in a criminal matter. Those acts included

holding himself out as a paralegal capable of providing legal services, giving legal

18

advice, discussing case law, managing case activities, developing and discussing legal

strategies and defenses and examining a surveillance video with John Hill Jr. and his

wife, Patricia Hill. The Referee finds the testimony of both Mr. and Mrs. Hill credible,

and accepts their descriptions of the conversations they had with Addys Walker.

Specifically, the Referee finds that Mr. Walker spoke separately with Mr. Hill about

legal strategies for his case, discussed the concept of entrapment and told Mr. Hill that

he had a good entrapment defense, talked about “c-4” motions and said that one would

be filed in Mr. Hill’s case, and told Mr. Hill that he would attack the “probative” value

of the surveillance video made by law enforcement.

In The Florida Bar v. Schramek, 616 So. 2d 979 (Fla.1993), the Supreme Court

held that the following activities constitute the practice of law and enjoined the

Respondent in that case from engaging in the following activities:

(a) advising individuals as to various remedies available to them and possible course of action; (b) engaging in personal legal assistance; (c) having direct contact in the nature of consultation, explanation, recommendations, advice; (d) giving advice or making decisions on behalf of others that require legal skill and knowledge of the law greater than that possessed by the average citizen; (e) explaining legal remedies

The Supreme Court of Florida has held that such activities are usually reserved only to

the judgment of a person educated, trained, and licensed in the practice of law. The

Florida Bar v. Neiman, 816 So. 2d 587, 596 (Fla. 2002). The Court has further held

19

that “the single most important concern in the Court's defining and regulating the

practice of law is the protection of the public from incompetent, unethical, or

irresponsible representation.” The Florida Bar v. Moses, 380 So. 2d 412, 417 (Fla.

1980).

In regard to Mr. Hill, Respondent Walker accepted a direct payment of

$700.00 for legal services he would provide to Mr. Hill, assuring him that he would

keep “his hand on the pulse of the case.” Mr. Walker indicated that the fee for his

services would only be $700 because Mr. Hill was a “friend.” Although Mr. Walker

also persuaded Mr. Hill to hire attorney Paul Srygley, Mr. Hill testified that he believed

Mr. Walker was also an attorney who would be representing him in his criminal case.

Mr. Hill and his wife testified that the $700 fee was paid to Respondent Walker on

March 14, 2004. Mr. Hill’s attorney, Paul Srygley, testified that Respondent Walker

was not working under his supervision when he performed legal services for John Hill,

Jr., nor when Mr. Walker collected the $700 fee. Mr. Hill firmly believed that Mr.

Walker was in charge of his defense, that Walker was taking the lead and “calling the

shots,” and that Walker was filing appropriate motions, based on their conversations.

Furthermore, in regard to Mr. Hill’s employment, Mr. Walker specifically told Mr. Hill

that he had spoken to an attorney representing Florida A&M University, Mr. Hill’s

employer, and had convinced them to allow Mr. Hill to retain his job as a professor. It

is clear that no such conversation ever occurred. Based on the foregoing, the Referee

20

finds that Mr. Walker’s contacts with Mr. Hill constituted the unlicensed practice of

law.

COUNT V

The evidence produced by The Florida Bar in support of this Count was the

deposition of Mr. Linda Shabazz and the testimony of attorney Paul Srygley. Ms.

Shabazz testified that she hired Mr. Srygley, at Mr. Walker’s suggestion, and also hired

Mr. Walker separately to “help” her incarcerated son. Ms. Shabazz paid Mr. Srygley

$1500, and paid Addys Walker $1200 for them to look into her son’s situation. It is

not clear exactly what she wanted both men to do, but she did pay them to render

services to her son. Ms. Shabazz’ testimony reveals her frustration with both Mr.

Srygley and Respondent for their failure to return her phone calls, and for their

apparent abandonment of her case. She testified that she knew Addys Walker

personally, knew he was not a lawyer, knew that he was a paralegal, and understood

that attorney Paul Srygley was a lawyer and would handle at least part of the effort on

behalf of her son. Ms. Shabazz appeared very uncomfortable about causing Mr.

Walker trouble, and indicated that her complaint to The Florida Bar was made only

after she could get no response from Mr. Srygley or Mr. Walker about her son’s

situation. Interestingly, Ms. Shabazz also testified that Mr. Walker attempted to have

Ms. Shabazz communicate directly with Paul Srygley so that he would not experience

further difficulty with The Florida Bar. He nonetheless accepted the $1200 from her

21

directly for services on behalf of her son. Mr. Walker explains those services to be

investigator-type missions of securing pleadings from attorney Barbara Hobbs, and for

making a trip to Jefferson County to retrieve copies of a file. Unfortunately, Mr.

Srygley testified that he did not retain Mr. Walker to work on Ms. Shabazz’ case, and

did not ask Mr. Walker to collect any fee from her on his behalf. As such, the Referee

finds that Respondent was not working in a paralegal or investigator capacity when he

engaged in these activities, and that such activities also were the unlicensed practice of

law.

COUNT VI

Although the preceeding five counts of The Florida Bar’s petition involve

serious and highly destructive actions undertaken by Mr. Walker, this Count is perhaps

the most egregious. In regard to Count VI, the Referee finds that Respondent Walker

engaged in the practice of law by inducing Christopher Watson to rely upon him to

provide legal representation and legal services in a criminal matter. The testimony of

Mr. Watson’s father, Henry Watson, established that he was referred to Mr. Walker

through family members in his effort to help his son. Henry Watson’s understanding,

however, was that Mr. Walker was a lawyer who could help with a likely criminal

prosecution against Chris Watson. As in the other cases described above, Henry

Watson met with Addys Walker at Mr. Walker’s office, and at that meeting, Mr.

Walker convinced Henry Watson that he could help his son. Following that meeting,

22

Mr. Watson brought $7500 to Mr. Walker as a fee “to get the case started.” Although

Mr. Walker suggests that the fee was for attorney Paul Srygley, Mr. Watson never met

with, or retained, Mr. Srygley as counsel for his son. In fact, although Mr. Walker had

enthusiastically recommended Mr. Srygley as counsel for Chris Watson, attorney

William Bubsey actually ended up representing Chris in court. At his meetings with

Henry Watson, Addys Walker spoke to him in detail about the facts of Chris Watson’s

case, pulled up information on a computer screen about Chris Watson, proposed

defenses to the charges, and ventured opinions regarding the strength of the

government’s case. Henry Watson’s primary concern was to hire a lawyer who could

help Chris, since law enforcement was looking for Chris and Mr. Watson knew that

Chris needed to turn himself in.

Following Henry Watson’s meeting with Addys Walker, he telephoned Chris in

Atlanta on a cell phone and told him about Mr. Walker. Chris Watson is adamant that

from the beginning, Mr. Walker told him he was an attorney, and that he would handle

his case. Chris came to Tallahassee and met with Addys Walker, and Mr. Walker

arranged for Chris to stay with a friend of Walker’s, Mike Jones. Although Mr.

Walker knew that law enforcement was looking for Chris Watson, he eventually

allowed Chris to stay at his house, took Chris on trips to other parts of the state, and

even secured a false ID for Chris on a trip to Miami. Although one might question

why Mr. Walker would do such things for someone hiding from law enforcement, the

23

answer is quite simple: money. Chris Watson testified that Addys Walker told him his

fee would be $30,000, since he would be taking Chris’ case to trial. This fee was

arrived at after Chris Watson protested Mr. Walker’s first fee request of $100,000; Mr.

Walker agreed to the reduced fee of $30,000 because Chris’ aunt was “a friend.” Thus,

after Mr. Watson paid Addys Walker $7500, Chris Watson paid him another $17,500

to represent him on the impending criminal charges. There is no doubt that $25,000

was paid directly to Mr. Walker for Chris Watson’s legal representation. These sums

of money were acquired by Mr. Watson and his girlfriend, Essie Harrington, who also

testified at the hearing. What is so deplorable about this situation is that Mr. Walker’s

impersonation of a lawyer did nothing for Mr. Watson, other than to deprive him of a

very large sum of money. When Chris Watson finally realized that Addys Walker was

not a lawyer, and that he had done nothing on his behalf, Chris Watson had to pay a

real lawyer, William Bubsey, another $11,000 to actually represent him. Interestingly,

at some point, Mr. Walker suggested that Chris Watson also hire Paul Srygley to help

him with Chris’ case, but Chris declined to do so.

It is unclear what Mr. Walker’s defense is here, other than that he was merely

helping a perfect stranger, and that he did not receive any of the money Mr. Henry

Watson, Chris Watson, and Essie Harrington say they gave to Addys Walker. The

Referee finds these witnesses exceptionally credible, notwithstanding Chris Watson’s

obvious difficulties with the law. In regard to the specific acts of unlicensed practice

24

of law, the Referee finds that Mr. Walker told Chris Watson that he was negotiating

with federal prosecutors, had attended hearings in court in Pensacola, drafted legal

pleadings, and was performing various other legal services on Chris Watson’s behalf.

In doing so, there is also no doubt that Addys Walker held himself out as an attorney to

induce Christopher Watson to pay him a $30,000 fee, although only $25,000 was

actually conveyed. “Holding oneself out to be an attorney when not licensed

constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.” The Florida Bar v. Matus, 528 So. 2d

895, 896 (Fla. 1988)(citations omitted). Furthermore, to foreclose any issue about

whether Mr. Walker was working under attorney William Bubsey’s direction, Mr.

Bubsey testified that Respondent Walker was not working under his supervision when

he performed legal services for Christopher Watson and collected a fee for those

services. Mr. Bubsey also testified that his legal fee of $11,000.00 did not include any

payments to Addys Walker.

III. RECOMMENDATIONS

Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is the

recommendation of the undersigned Referee as follows:

A. That Respondent be found to have engaged in the unlicensed practice of

law in the State of Florida.

B. That Respondent be restrained and enjoined from engaging in the following

activities:

25

(1) Giving legal advice and having direct consultation on legal matters;

(2) Advising individuals as to various remedies available to them and

possible courses of action;

(3) Rendering personal legal assistance to individuals;

(4) Having direct contact with individuals in the nature of consultation,

explanation, recommendations, or advice regarding a pending or potential legal dispute

or action;

(5) Giving advice or making decisions on behalf of others that require

legal skill and knowledge of the law greater than that possessed by the average citizen;

(6) Explaining legal remedies to individuals;

(7) Answering an individual's specific legal questions;

(8) Charging a fee for legal services or collecting a fee for legal services on

behalf of a member of The Florida Bar;

(9) Holding himself out as an attorney and/or qualified to handle a legal

matter;

(10) Holding himself out as someone with legal skill and knowledge greater

than that possessed by the average citizen;

(11) Offering to assist an individual with their legal problem or with the

legal problem of another;

(12) Using the title paralegal, legal assistant or other similar term unless he

26

is working under the direction and supervision of a member of The Florida Bar;

(13) Operating a business with "Paralegal" in the name unless the business

is only providing services to members of The Florida Bar; and

(14) From otherwise engaging in the practice of law in the State of Florida

until such time as Respondent is duly licensed to practice in this state.

C. That the costs of this proceeding be taxed against Respondent.

D. That a monetary penalty in the amount of $6000.00 which is equal to

$1000.00 per incident of the unlicensed practice of law be imposed against

Respondent.

E. That Respondent be ordered to pay restitution as follows:

NAME AMOUNT DATE TO BE PAID

Christopher Watson

Henry Watson

$17,500.00

$ 7,500.00

Upon Final Judgment

Upon Final Judgment

John Hill, Jr. $ 700.00 Upon Final Judgment

Linda Shabazz $ 1, 200.00 Upon Final Judgment

In regard to Willie Hart, the Referee recommends that Addys Walker reimburse

Mr. Hart for the 2004 value of the 1997 Honda Accord conveyed to Mr. Walker as a

“retainer.”

27

It is further recommended that Respondent be ordered to meet with the UPL

Department of The Florida Bar to establish a payment schedule for restitution, should

Mr. Walker be unable to pay the restitution amount in full. After the payment schedule

is established, the Referee recommends that Mr. Walker make a monthly report

detailing the payments.

IV. STATEMENT OF COSTS AND MANNER IN WHICH COSTS SHOULD

BE TAXED

The Referee finds the following costs were reasonably incurred by The Florida

Bar:

1. Investigator Costs $1,401.50

2. Court Reporter Costs $1,968.80

3. Witness Costs $ 467.33

4. Travel & Out of Pocket $ 499.33 Expenses of Counsel

5. Copy Charges $ 7.20

TOTAL $4,344.16

It is recommended that such costs be charged to Respondent and that interest at the

statutory rate shall accrue and be payable beginning 30 days after the judgment in this

case becomes final.

28

Dated this _______ day of October, 2006, at Tallahassee, Leon County,

Florida.

_______________________________ JANET E. FERRIS Referee

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing Report of Referee has been furnished by U.S. Regular Mail to Thomas D. Hall, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Florida, Tallahassee, Florida 32301; and that copies were mailed by U.S. Regular Mail to Lori Holcomb, UPL Director, The Florida Bar, 651 E. Jefferson Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300, and Addys T. Walker, Respondent, at 327 Office Plaza Drive, Suite 108, Tallahassee, Florida 32301 by regular U.S. Mail, this ________ day of October, 2006. _______________________________ Honorable Janet E. Ferris, Referee