THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
JOHN L. MAYNARD, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Bar sought disciplinary review of a referee's recommended two-month suspension of attorney John L. Maynard for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Florida Supreme Court declined to exercise discretionary review because the Bar failed to timely file its petition for review and showed no compelling reason for the delay, thereby affirming the suspension.
The court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to review the petition because the Bar failed to demonstrate compelling reasons for its failure to file timely. The court upheld the referee's recommended two-month suspension with automatic reinstatement.
[1] A petition for review of a referee's report in a bar disciplinary proceeding is jurisdictional if filed outside the prescribed time period, unless the court exercises its…
[2] The Supreme Court will not exercise its discretion to review a petition for review filed after the expiration of the time period absent a showing of compelling reasons fo…
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The filing of such petition or cross-petition shall be jurisdictional as to a review to be procured as a matter of right.”
Establishes that timely filing is jurisdictional for mandatory review under the rule
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe referee found that respondent John L. Maynard violated certain provisions of The Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility and Integration R…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Bar Code Of Professional Responsibility cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this proceeding by The Florida Bar against John L. Maynard, a member of The Florida Bar, we are asked to review the referee’s recommended discipline of two months’ suspension with automatic reinstatement. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Bar Integration Rule, article XI, Rule 11.09.
In his report rendered October 19, 1978, the referee found that respondent had violated certain provisions of The Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility and Integration Rule and recommended discipline of two months’ suspension with automatic reinstatement. Complainant filed the referee’s report with this Court on November 17, 1978, thereby commencing the running of the thirty-day period for initiating review set forth in Florida Bar Integration Rule, article XI, Rule 11.09(3)(a). On December 4, 1978, complainant filed a motion to return the case to the referee for further proceedings and a motion for extension of time beyond December 18, 1978, to file a petition for review. On January 10, 1979, we denied the motion to remand the case to the referee but granted complainant an extension of time to file its petition for review until January 15, 1979. Notwithstanding the extension, the Bar did not file its petition until January 17, 1979.
Florida Bar Integration Rule, article XI, Rule 11.09(3)(a) provides:
Proceedings for review shall be commenced within 30 days after the mailing date of a letter from the Executive Director or Staff Counsel serving a copy of the referee report on the respondent. The proceeding shall be commenced by filing with the Supreme Court a petition for review specifying those portions of the report ®of a referee sought to be reviewed. Within 10 days after service of such petition the opposing party may filed a cross-petition for review specifying any additional portion of the report or judgment which said party desires reviewed. The filing of such petition or cross-petition shall be jurisdictional as to a review to be procured as a matter of right.
In this instance the rule is not jurisdictional; we have discretionary power to review petitions filed after expiration of the thirty-day time period. Florida Bar v. Rubin, 362 So. 2d 12 (Fla.1978). However, we will not exercise our discretion absent a showing of compelling reasons why the petition was not timely filed. Id. In this case complainant has failed to show good cause for its default. We therefore decline to exercise our discretion, and complainant’s petition for review is hereby stricken.
Having carefully reviewed the referee’s report, we conclude that his findings are supported by the evidence. Further, it is not demonstrated that the referee’s recommended discipline is erroneous, unlawful, or unjustified. Fla.Bar.Integr.Rule, art. XI, Rule 11.09(3)(e).
Accordingly, respondent, John L. May-hard, is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of two months with automatic Reinstatement after that period pursuant to Florida Bar Integration Rule, article XI, Rule 11.10(3). The suspension shall be effective on July 2, 1979, thereby giving respondent time to take the steps necessary to protect his clients.
Costs in the amount of $1,881.40 are hereby taxed against respondent.
It is so ordered.
ENGLAND, C. J., ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, SUNDBERG and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur. HATCHETT, J., concurs in result only.