THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
ARTHUR W. TIFFORD, 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 to maintain the suspension of attorney Arthur W. Tifford based on a felony conviction. However, after federal courts granted Tifford habeas corpus relief and vacated his conviction as fundamentally unfair, the Florida Supreme Court terminated his suspension, treating the habeas relief as equivalent to an acquittal.
Tifford's suspension is terminated. The issuance of the writ of habeas corpus on appeal based on fundamental unfairness affecting the fact-finding process and guilt or innocence is equivalent to an acquittal, requiring termination of the suspension under Florida Bar Integration Rule 11.07(2)(c).
[1] A writ of habeas corpus, affirmed on appeal, that finds a trial fundamentally unfair and affecting the fact-finding process is the equivalent of an acquittal.
[2] A lawyer suspended from practice based on a felony conviction may have that suspension terminated if the conviction is subsequently overturned by a federal habeas corpus…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 fundamental unfairness which tainted the respondent's trial affected the fact-finding process and the question of guilt or innocence. In such circumstances the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus, having been affirmed on appeal, is the equivalent of an acquittal.”
Establishes the court's legal principle that habeas relief based on fundamental trial unfairness is equivalent to an acquittal for purposes of professional discipline
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn February 1975, Tifford was suspended from practicing law pursuant to Florida Bar Integration Rule 11.07(2) based on a felony conviction. His convic…
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 Fundamentally Unfair Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On February 5, 1975, respondent Arthur W. Tifford, a member of The Florida Bar, was suspended from the practice of law by order of this Court. Tifford v. The Florida Bar, 309 So. 2d 542 (Fla.1975). The Court ordered the suspension pursuant to Florida Bar Integration Rule, article XI, Rule 11.-07(2), based upon a felony conviction. That conviction was subsequently affirmed on appeal. Tifford v. State, 334 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 3d DCA) cert. denied, 344 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 1976).
The respondent sought federal habeas corpus relief. On November 30, 1977, the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, acting upon Tifford’s petition, ordered that “unless the State of Florida grants petitioner a new trial within ninety (90) days of this order, this Court will grant petitioner the Writ of Habeas Corpus.” At the end of the ninety-day period following, the respondent moved for issuance of the writ. The court issued the writ, ordered Tifford released, and absolutely discharged him from his conviction on the ground that his trial was fundamentally unfair. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. Tifford v. Wainwright, 588 F. 2d 954 (5th Cir.) reh. denied 592 F. 2d 233 (5th Cir. 1979).
The fundamental unfairness which tainted the respondent’s trial affected the fact-finding process and the question of guilt or innocence. In such circumstances the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus, having been affirmed on appeal, is the equivalent of an acquittal. Accordingly, the respondent’s suspension should be and is hereby terminated. Fla.Bar Integr.Rule, art. XI, Rule 11.07(2)(c).
It is so ordered.
ENGLAND, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD and OVERTON, JJ., concur. ALDERMAN, J., concurs specially with an opinion, with which. BOYD and OVER-TON, JJ., concur.
ALDERMAN, Justice,
concurring specially-
I agree with the majority opinion, that in view of the federal court’s order absolutely discharging respondent from his conviction, respondent’s automatic suspension ordered pursuant to Florida Bar Integration Rule, article XI, rule 11.07(2) should be terminated; however, I point out that the discharge of respondent, pursuant to his habeas corpus petition, does not determine the facts of this case as to whether there was misconduct on the part of respondent warranting further disciplinary proceedings. The Florida Bar is not precluded by the termination of this suspension from proceeding against respondent pursuant to the normal disciplinary procedures established in Florida Bar Integration Rule, article XI.
BOYD and OVERTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Tifford v. Louie L. Wainwright, 588 F.2d 954 (5th Cir. 1979)
- Tifford v. State, 334 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Tifford v. Louie L. Wainwright, 592 F.2d 233 (5th Cir. 1979)
- Tifford v. THE Florida BAR, 309 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1975)